Wells v. State

228 A.D.2d 581, 644 N.Y.2d 526, 644 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7109
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 17, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 581 (Wells v. State) 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
Wells v. State, 228 A.D.2d 581, 644 N.Y.2d 526, 644 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

[582]*582The claimant sustained a fracture of the left humerus in April 1989 as the result of a motor vehicle accident. At that time he underwent open reduction surgery and insertion of a fixation rod. Thereafter, in March 1990 the claimant was incarcerated and is currently serving time for armed robbery. The claimant maintains that the defendant’s failure to provide appropriate and timely medical attention and treatment constituted malpractice and negligence and that as a result, he sustained a permanent partial loss of use of his left arm.

At the time of trial, the claimant did not present any expert medical testimony in support of his contentions. In the absence of expert testimony, the court dismissed the claimant’s claim for failure to present evidence to establish malpractice. We now affirm.

Where medical issues are not within the ordinary experience and knowledge of lay persons, expert medical opinion is a required element of a prima facie case of medical malpractice (see, Ferretti v Town of Greenburgh, 191 AD2d 608, 611). If the claimant fails to present expert medical opinion in support of the claim, the claim must be dismissed (see, Romano v St. Vincent’s Med. Ctr., 178 AD2d 467, 470).

Here, the claimant’s contentions were wholly unsupported by expert medical testimony. In lieu of testimony, the claimant relied on a copy of the medical report of a treating physician, in which he stated "[A]fter the [1989] surgery, secondary to poor followup arrangements, patient developed a nonunion with some migration of the hardware in the area of the fracture site”. However, this statement alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie case.

We have reviewed the claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Harris v. State of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 50906(U) (New York State Court of Claims, 2025)
Carroll v. United States
N.D. New York, 2023
Myers v. State
46 A.D.3d 1030 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Wood v. State
45 A.D.3d 1198 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Ericson v. Palleschi
23 A.D.3d 608 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Tatta v. State
19 A.D.3d 817 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Vascellaro v. Brauner
254 A.D.2d 350 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Lanpont v. Savvas Cab Corp.
244 A.D.2d 208 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
228 A.D.2d 581, 644 N.Y.2d 526, 644 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-state-nyappdiv-1996.