In Braxton v. Erie County Medical Center Corp., the Appellate Division of New York's Fourth Department addressed an appeal concerning a negligence claim stemming from the alleged failure to diagnose and treat a cervical abscess. The plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of Sheila M. Braxton, challenged a May 13, 2021, order from the Supreme Court of Erie County, which had granted partial summary judgment to defendant Kaleida Health, operating as Buffalo General Hospital, along with other defendants.
The appellate court modified the lower court's order, denying parts of Kaleida's motion related to claims against it based on the alleged negligence of Dr. Andrew Poreda and Dr. Joseph Riedy Jr. Specifically, these claims involved failures to adequately document medical records, request necessary consultations, order timely lab studies, and respond appropriately to the decedent's symptoms. Claims against Kaleida related to the negligence of other staff members, excluding the aforementioned doctors and Dr. Samir A. Bute and Dr. Nida Arabi, were reinstated. Overall, the modified order was affirmed without costs, maintaining that the negligence claims against Kaleida Health based on the actions of its staff remained valid.
In appeal No. 2, the plaintiff challenges an order that granted motions by Poreda and UEMS, dismissing claims related to Poreda's alleged failure to consult with the decedent's family and other alleged negligence due to the absence of these claims in the bill of particulars and amended complaint. The order also dismissed claims against UEMS concerning Riedy's actions, as Riedy was not employed by UEMS, and claims against UEMS staff for lack of specific identification of negligent employees. The plaintiff's expert allegations regarding unnamed staff's negligence were also found inadequate. In appeal No. 3, the plaintiff's appeal against an order denying Riedy's motion is dismissed as the plaintiff is not aggrieved. In appeal No. 4, the plaintiff appeals an order granting ECMC's motion. The court agrees with the plaintiff that the Supreme Court erred in granting Kaleida's motion regarding claims against Kaleida, Poreda, Riedy, and Kaleida staff, as triable issues of fact were raised by the plaintiff's medical expert affirmations. The court concludes that credibility issues regarding the conflicting expert opinions cannot be resolved on summary judgment. The plaintiff did not contest the part of the order related to the Bute-Arabi claims, which is considered abandoned. Ultimately, the court modifies the order in appeal No. 2, agreeing that UEMS and Poreda also failed to meet their burden regarding the UEMS staff and UEMS-Poreda claims, allowing the plaintiff's claims to proceed based on the expert affirmations.
Plaintiff did not improperly introduce new theories of liability in response to UEMS and Poreda's motion for summary judgment, contrary to the court's finding. The assessment of whether a new theory has been presented should start with the complaint, which in this case is comprehensive, detailing specific dates, medical providers, and treatments. In medical malpractice actions, a bill of particulars should reasonably expand upon the complaint to clarify allegations and limit surprises at trial. The plaintiff's bills adequately amplified the amended complaint's claims. The court's reliance on Walker v Caruana to assert that new theories were introduced is misplaced, as there has been no shift in the plaintiff's theory—that the defendants failed to diagnose and treat the decedent's cervical abscess. The plaintiff has not contested the ruling regarding UEMS-Riedy claims, indicating abandonment of that issue. In a separate appeal concerning ECMC, the court's decision to grant ECMC's motion was deemed erroneous, and the order was reversed. Even if ECMC initially met its burden, the plaintiff raised genuine issues of material fact through expert affirmations. The plaintiff was not obligated to name every negligent actor within ECMC, as the allegations in the amended complaint and accompanying particulars sufficiently notified ECMC of the claims, and ECMC, possessing the medical records, was aware of the relevant personnel involved in the decedent's care.
