Holmes v. Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holmes v. Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center

128 A.D.3d 596, 11 N.Y.S.3d 114

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

DecidedMay 26, 2015

Docket15222 305387/08

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 596 (Holmes v. Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center) 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

Holmes v. Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center, 128 A.D.3d 596, 11 N.Y.S.3d 114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edgar Walker, J.), entered January 14, 2014, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

At trial, plaintiff failed to establish that defendant (Bronx-Lebanon) deviated or departed from accepted practice and that that departure was a proximate cause of her injury (see Foster-Sturrup v Long, 95 AD3d 726 [1st Dept 2012]). Liability was not established by plaintiffs expert’s conclusory assertion that the appropriate diagnostic testing, if performed by Bronx-Lebanon during a January 6, 2008 emergency room visit, would have revealed “inflammation and swelling around the cecum and appendix,” prompted an emergency appendectomy, and obviated the need for plaintiff to undergo more extensive surgery later (see e.g. Rodriguez v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 28 AD3d 357, 357-358 [1st Dept 2006]). The expert failed to identify the evidentiary basis for his conclusion that diagnostic testing on January 6 would have revealed inflammation. To the contrary, based upon an operative report of the surgery performed at another hospital on January 8, the expert opined that the inflammatory process in plaintiffs abdomen would have existed for, at most, 36 hours before that surgery. That is, the inflammatory process would not have begun until well after plaintiff had been discharged from Bronx-Lebanon. In addition, the expert failed to explain how the failure to perform an appendectomy could have caused or contributed to the cecal perforation with which plaintiff was later diagnosed.

The court’s finding on defendant’s motion for summary judgment that plaintiff made out her prima facie case does not preclude dismissal of the complaint after the presentation of plaintiffs case at trial (see e.g. Rodriguez v Ford Motor Co., 106 AD3d 525 [1st Dept 2013]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Acosta, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edgar Walker, J.), entered January 14, 2014, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

At trial, plaintiff failed to establish that defendant (Bronx-Lebanon) deviated or departed from accepted practice and that that departure was a proximate cause of her injury (see Foster-Sturrup v Long, 95 AD3d 726 [1st Dept 2012]). Liability was not established by plaintiffs expert’s conclusory assertion that the appropriate diagnostic testing, if performed by Bronx-Lebanon during a January 6, 2008 emergency room visit, would have revealed “inflammation and swelling around the cecum and appendix,” prompted an emergency appendectomy, and obviated the need for plaintiff to undergo more extensive surgery later (see e.g. Rodriguez v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 28 AD3d 357, 357-358 [1st Dept 2006]). The expert failed to identify the evidentiary basis for his conclusion that diagnostic testing on January 6 would have revealed inflammation. To the contrary, based upon an operative report of the surgery performed at another hospital on January 8, the expert opined that the inflammatory process in plaintiffs abdomen would have existed for, at most, 36 hours before that surgery. That is, the inflammatory process would not have begun until well after plaintiff had been discharged from Bronx-Lebanon. In addition, the expert failed to explain how the failure to perform an appendectomy could have caused or contributed to the cecal perforation with which plaintiff was later diagnosed.

The court’s finding on defendant’s motion for summary judgment that plaintiff made out her prima facie case does not preclude dismissal of the complaint after the presentation of plaintiffs case at trial (see e.g. Rodriguez v Ford Motor Co., 106 AD3d 525 [1st Dept 2013]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Acosta, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 596, 11 N.Y.S.3d 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-bronx-lebanon-hospital-center-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack