Bustos v. Lenox Hill Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bustos v. Lenox Hill Hospital

105 A.D.3d 541, 963 N.Y.S.2d 115

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 16, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.3d 541 (Bustos v. Lenox Hill Hospital) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bustos v. Lenox Hill Hospital, 105 A.D.3d 541, 963 N.Y.S.2d 115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered July 26, 2011, which denied defendant Lenox Hill Hospital’s motion to set aside the verdict, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in defendants’ favor dismissing the complaint.

The only testimony plaintiffs’ expert gave as to the alleged deviation from the accepted standard of medical care in the performance of the birthing maneuvers was that the maneuvers “were excessive and caused th[e] injuries” and deviated from the appropriate standard of care. He did not explain or in any other way support his opinion, which therefore was speculative and conclusory and without probative force (see e.g. Rivera v Greenstein, 79 AD3d 564, 568 [1st Dept 2010]).

As to plaintiffs’ theory that there was a deviation from the accepted standard of care in the dosage of the epidural block given to plaintiff Maria, their own expert conceded that the dosage was standard and appropriate.

Concur—Andrias, J.E, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Feinman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered July 26, 2011, which denied defendant Lenox Hill Hospital’s motion to set aside the verdict, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in defendants’ favor dismissing the complaint.

The only testimony plaintiffs’ expert gave as to the alleged deviation from the accepted standard of medical care in the performance of the birthing maneuvers was that the maneuvers “were excessive and caused th[e] injuries” and deviated from the appropriate standard of care. He did not explain or in any other way support his opinion, which therefore was speculative and conclusory and without probative force (see e.g. Rivera v Greenstein, 79 AD3d 564, 568 [1st Dept 2010]).

As to plaintiffs’ theory that there was a deviation from the accepted standard of care in the dosage of the epidural block given to plaintiff Maria, their own expert conceded that the dosage was standard and appropriate.

Concur—Andrias, J.E, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.3d 541, 963 N.Y.S.2d 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bustos-v-lenox-hill-hospital-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack