Yusuff v El-Eshmawi 2024 NY Slip Op 33175(U) September 6, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 805145/2014 Judge: Kathy J. King Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 12:16 PM INDEX NO. 805145/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. KATHY J. KING PART 06 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 805145/2014 CECILIA YUSUFF, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MOHAMMED FAROUK YUSUFF, AND MOTION DATE 04/11/2022 CECILIA YUSUFF, INDIVIDUALLY, MOTION SEQ. NO. 003 Plaintiffs,
-v- AHMED M. EL-ESHMAWI, AMIT AUDUMBAR PAWALE, DECISION + ORDER ON ANELECHI ANYANWU, FEDERICO MILLA, SEAN PINNEY, MOTION MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY .
Upon the foregoing documents, Defendants Ahmed M. El-Eshmawi “Dr. El-Eshmawi”),
Amit Audumbar Pawale (“Dr. Pawale”), Anelechi Anyanwu (“Dr. Anyanwu”), Federico Milla
(“Dr. Milla”), Sean Pinney, M.D. (“Dr. Pinney”) and Mount Sinai Medical Center (collectively
referred to as “Defendants”) move pursuant to CPLR 3212, for an Order for summary judgment
and dismissal of the Complaint on the ground that there are no triable issues of fact, and that the
moving Defendants cannot be held liable as a matter of law; and amending the caption to remove
those parties and/or discontinued from the subject matter
Plaintiffs Cecilia Yusuff, as Administratrix of the Estate of Mohammed Farouk Yusuff,
and Cecilia Yusuff (“Plaintiffs”) oppose the motion.
THE INSTANT MOTION
The gravamen of the claims in Plaintiffs’ complaint allege that the Defendants were
negligent in the procurement and implantation of a substandard and unsuitable donor heart into the 805145/2014 YUSUFF, CECILIA vs. EL-ESHMAWI, AHMED M. Page 1 of 15 Motion No. 003
1 of 15 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 12:16 PM INDEX NO. 805145/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024
decedent resulting in his death. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants departed from
good and accepted medical practice and were negligent in the care and treatment rendered to the
Plaintiff’s decedent (“decedent”) by the Defendants from on or about May 8, 2012, through on or
about May 30, 2012 including, inter alia, (1) performing an orthotopic heart transplant with a
LVAD (Left Ventricular Assist Device) explantation and AICD (Automatic Internal Cardioverter
Defibrillator) removal; (2) failing to timely and properly perform proper testing of the donor heart
prior to procuring and transplanting it; (3) failing to appreciate the findings of the diagnostic tests
performed; (4) failing to visualize defects in the donor heart; failing to review and obtain the donor
medical history; failing to review the records of the donor facility; (5) negligently advising the
decedent to accept transplantation of a substandard heart when there was no urgent/emergent need;
(6) failing to obtain informed consent for the surgery performed, and negligently allowing
unqualified individuals to treat the decedent.
Defendants argue in the instant motion that the treatment and care rendered to decedent by
Defendants was appropriate and in accordance with good and accepted standards of care and were
not the proximate cause of the decedent’s alleged injuries.
BACKGROUND
At the time of the treatment at issue, the decedent was 60 years old, and had been referred
to Defendant Dr. Pinney, an employee of Defendant Mount Sinai Medical Center (“Mt. Sinai”),
by his primary care physician for consideration of a heart transplantation, based on a diagnosis of
ischemic cardiomyopathy Dr. Pinney saw the decedent on September 2, 2011, at which time his
impression was that the decedent was first to be evaluated for heart transplantation, and then for
mechanical support. During this visit, Dr. Pinney discussed “the indications evaluation process
and outcomes with cardiac process.”
805145/2014 YUSUFF, CECILIA vs. EL-ESHMAWI, AHMED M. Page 2 of 15 Motion No. 003
2 of 15 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 12:16 PM INDEX NO. 805145/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024
On September 22, 2011, Defendant Dr. Anyanwu performed an implantation of an
intracorporeal (“LVAD”) as a bridge to the anticipated cardiac transplant. Subsequently, between
December 2011 and January 2012, the decedent developed an infection at the site of the LVAD
drive line, and was started on antibiotics (Ciprofloxacin) to treat the infection. An examination on
February 15, 2012, revealed that the antibiotics were effectively treating the infection.
Dr. Pinney testified that after the decedent was started on Ciprofloxacin, Dr. Pinney
designated him as a New York Heart Association Class 2 to 3, which, meant the decedent “has
functional limitations whereby he cannot walk, climb stairs, exercise as much as a person without
heart disease would walk.” However, Dr. Pinney testified that at that point, the decedent was able
to walk four blocks on a flat surface, and that this was an improvement from the decedent’s
functional limitations in December, 2011.
The Plaintiff testified that in May, 2012, she and the decedent received a call from Mt.
Sinai Hospital advising them that a donor heart had been identified and that they were to go to Mt.
Sinai so a transplant could take place. On May 7, 2012, the donor’s wife consented to use of the
donor organ “Telephonic Consent Form For Donation of Organs and Tissues by Authorized
Party”.
The heart donor was a 49-year-old male who was status post motorcycle accident on May
6, 2012. The donor was transferred from Southampton Hospital to Stony Brook University
Hospital, with a Glasgow Coma Scale of 3. A head CT showed injuries consistent with diffuse
brain injury and/or anoxic event. The records indicate that the donor had lost pulse twice while at
Southampton Hospital, and had a cardiac arrest with “17 minutes of downtime.” He was intubated,
and it was noted that the donor’s pupils were dilated and fixed, and that he was tachycardic and
hypotensive. An EKG done on May 6, 2012, indicated the possibility of a “lateral injury or acute
805145/2014 YUSUFF, CECILIA vs. EL-ESHMAWI, AHMED M. Page 3 of 15 Motion No. 003
3 of 15 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 12:16 PM INDEX NO. 805145/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024
infarct,” and noted “Prolonged QT, Abnormal ECG.” A chest x-ray performed on May 7, 2012,
showed bilateral pleural effusion. On May 7, 2012, after the first evaluation for brain death was
performed, a 2D echocardiogram was conducted. The report stated that it was a “technically
difficult study,” and that only “limited views” were taken to attempt to assess heart wall motion
abnormalities. On May 7, 2012, the donor was declared brain dead.
A cardiovascular catheterization with angiogram was performed on the donor on May 8,
2012, which showed moderate pulmonary hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, moderate
elevation of right atrial, right ventricular and pulmonary artery pressures, and left ventricular
diastolic dysfunction. Diagrams (organ physical assessment) of the donor’s injuries indicated that
in addition to extensive head injuries, the donor had a six-inch abrasion to the right chest wall.
A history provided to the New York Organ Donor transplant coordinator by the donor’s
wife documented that the donor was a smoker for 20+ years, of less than a pack a day, who had
quit smoking cigarettes two years prior. The donor had smoked a pipe every week for over 20
years and drank 1-6 beers a day for over 20 years. Just prior to explantation of the donor’s heart,
his weight was noted to be 253.53 lbs.
The donor heart was explanted on May 9, 2012, and was noted to be “large.” It was placed
in an ice box for transportation back to Mt. Sinai. At the hospital, the decedent signed the consent
form, which indicated that he had been advised of the potential benefits, risks, and side effects
associated with the procedure, and that he had been given the opportunity to ask questions. Dr.
Anyanwu also signed the form. Dr. Anyanwu performed the transplantation of the heart after an
explantation of the LVAD and AICD. The operative note documented that immediately before
transplantation, it was observed that “the heart was...heavy consistent with left ventricular
hypertrophy.” The ischemic time for the donor heart was 154 minutes.
805145/2014 YUSUFF, CECILIA vs. EL-ESHMAWI, AHMED M. Page 4 of 15 Motion No. 003
4 of 15 [* 4] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 12:16 PM INDEX NO. 805145/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024
On May 15, 2012, the Transplant team note stated that the decedent had shortness of breath
and looked generally unwell. He also reported abdominal pain, fullness, and a somewhat tense
abdomen on exam. The transplant note of May 17, 2012, indicates that the Plaintiff’s progressive
hemodynamic deterioration was highly suspicious for heart rejection, and that prophylaxis was
required to minimize infection risks.
The decedent experienced extensive complications and medical treatment from May 17th
through May 23rd of 2012. Various emergent efforts, including surgery, medication, and
mechanical support,1 were made to stabilize the heart, however the Transplant team ultimately
assessed the decedent as being in circulatory collapse secondary to right ventricular failure. On
May 23, 2012, blood cultures were reported to be positive, and it was believed that the decedent
had pneumonia and a pleural effusion. It was concluded that the decedent was not a candidate for
re-transplantation. Dr. Pinney noted that the decedent was exhibiting progressive graft
dysfunction. The decedent’s condition continued to deteriorate, and on May 30, 2012, the decedent
expired.
The autopsy report states that the final principal diagnosis was: “[d]onor heart with
significant hypertensive and atherosclerotic disease with hypertrophy of both the left (2.0 cm) and
right (0.9 cm) ventricles and mild to moderate coronary artery disease, leading to graft dysfunction
(biventricular heart failure) in post operative period.”
DISCUSSION
“To sustain a cause of action for medical malpractice, a plaintiff must prove two essential
elements: (1) a deviation or departure from accepted practice, and (2) evidence that such departure
1 The Court notes that various mechanical supports were utilized in Plaintiff’s medical treatment, such as placement of an extracorporeal membrane oxygen machine (ECMO), intra-aortic balloon pump, and left and right ventricular assist devices (LVAD and RVAD).
805145/2014 YUSUFF, CECILIA vs. EL-ESHMAWI, AHMED M. Page 5 of 15 Motion No. 003
5 of 15 [* 5] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 12:16 PM INDEX NO. 805145/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024
was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury” (Frye v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 70 AD3d 15, 24 [1st
Dept 2009]; see Roques v Noble, 73 AD3d 204 [1st Dept 2010]; Elias v Bash, 54 AD3d 354 [2d
Dept 2008]; DeFilippo v New York Downtown Hosp., 10 AD3d 521 [1st Dept 2004]). A defendant
moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a
matter of law by establishing the absence of a triable issue of fact as to the alleged departure from
accepted standards of medical practice (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Frye
v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 70 AD3d at 24), or by establishing that the plaintiff was not injured by
such treatment (see McGuigan v Centereach Mgt. Group, Inc., 94 AD3d 955 [2d Dept 2012];
Sharp v Weber, 77 AD3d 812 [2d Dept 2010]; see generally Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d 18 [2d
Dept 2011]). To satisfy this burden, a defendant must present expert opinion testimony that is
supported by the facts in the record, addresses the essential allegations in the complaint or the bill
of particulars, and is detailed, specific, and factual in nature (see Roques v Noble, 73 AD3d at 206;
Joyner-Pack v Sykes, 54 AD3d 727 [2d Dept 2008]; Koi Hou Chan v Yeung, 66 AD3d 642 [2d
Dept 2009]; Jones v Ricciardelli, 40 AD3d 935 [2d Dept 2007]). Furthermore, to satisfy the burden
on a motion for summary judgment, a defendant must address and rebut specific allegations of
malpractice set forth in the plaintiffs’ bill of particulars (see Wall v Flushing Hosp. Med. Ctr., 78
AD3d 1043 [2d Dept 2010]; Grant v Hudson Val. Hosp. Ctr., 55 AD3d 874 [2d Dept 2008];
Terranova v Finklea, 45 AD3d 572 [2d Dept 2007]).
Once defendant establishes prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the
burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact by submitting an
expert's affidavit or affirmation attesting to a departure from accepted medical practice and opining
that the defendant's acts or omissions were a competent producing cause of the plaintiff's injuries
805145/2014 YUSUFF, CECILIA vs. EL-ESHMAWI, AHMED M. Page 6 of 15 Motion No. 003
6 of 15 [* 6] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 12:16 PM INDEX NO. 805145/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024
(see Roques v Noble, 73 AD3d at 207; Landry v Jakubowitz, 68 AD3d 728 [2d Dept 2009]; Luu v
Paskowski, 57 AD3d 856 [2d Dept 2008]).
In support of their motion for summary judgment, the moving Defendants submit the expert
affirmation of Michael Argenziano, M.D. (“Dr. Argenziano”) who is a board-certified Thoracic
Surgeon, and the expert affirmation of Maryjane Farr, M.D. (“Dr. Farr”) who is board-certified in
Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Disease, Advanced Heart Failure, and Transplant Cardiology.
Both physicians reviewed the pleadings, Verified Bill of Particulars, Amended Verified Bill of
Particulars, deposition transcripts, medical records from Mount Sinai Hospital, the Mount Sinai
Advanced Heart Failure records, the New York Donor Network Records and the Autopsy report.
In sum, each expert opines, that the treatment and care rendered to the decedent by the
Defendants was appropriate and in accordance with good and accepted standards of care, and was
not the proximate cause of the decedent’s alleged injuries and subsequent death.
Dr. Argenziano opines that the donor heart was an acceptable organ for transplantation. He
notes that a complete and thorough workup of the donor heart was performed, which included all
proper diagnostic testing of the donor heart prior to transplantation, which deemed the heart
acceptable. Further, Dr. Argenziano opines that the team at Stony Brook University properly ruled
out any significant complications by performing the appropriate testing. Dr. Argenziano opines
that the claims regarding a failure to appreciate the donor’s coronary artery disease prior to
transplantation are entirely without merit, as there is no indication on any of the donor’s various
studies that coronary artery/atherosclerotic disease was present. Accordingly, he opines that the
Defendants were entitled to rely upon the findings and workup of the Stony Brook physicians. Dr.
Argenziano further opines that although the angiogram impression noted mild to moderate left
ventricle hypertrophy, an angiogram is not a diagnostic study for left ventricle hypertrophy and
805145/2014 YUSUFF, CECILIA vs. EL-ESHMAWI, AHMED M. Page 7 of 15 Motion No. 003
7 of 15 [* 7] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 12:16 PM INDEX NO. 805145/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024
that it is used to access the coronary arteries. Dr. Argenziano opines that the echocardiogram is the
gold standard, and the echocardiogram impression here indicated that the size and appearance of
the left ventricle and its cavity were normal and appropriate.
Dr. Farr also opines that the decision to use the donor heart was entirely appropriate and
within the standard of care. Dr. Farr concurs with Dr. Argenziano’s opinion that the workup of the
heart was appropriate, and that although the filling pressures were elevated in the heart and the
donor presented had tachycardia with hypotension, these symptoms were quickly resolved and
would not have caused any damage. Dr. Farr further opines that there were no indications in the
diagnostic studies performed at Stony Brook, which would have raised concerns regarding the
quality of the heart and justify performing further diagnostic tests. Additionally, Dr. Farr opines
that the decedent was properly categorized as a status 1A candidate for heart transplantation due
to the complication with his LVAD and driveline infection. As such, it was within good and
accepted standards of medical care to accept the next available heart unless there was a significant
reason not to do so. In this regard, both Drs. Farr and Argenziano opine that the donor heart was
within the acceptable range for transfer.
Regarding the treatment of the decedent post-transplant, Dr. Argenziano opines that the
timing and workup, diagnosis, and subsequent treatment of the graft dysfunction was appropriate.
According to Dr. Argenziano, the decedent suffered from primary graft dysfunction, which is a
known and accepted complication in cardiac transplantation procedures, sometimes occurring in
as high as 40% of cases, and has a high morbidity rate, even with optimal care.
Based on the foregoing, the Defendants have established their prima facie entitlement to
summary judgment as a matter of law through the expert affirmations of Drs. Argenziano and Farr,
which demonstrate that the decision to transplant the donor heart was within the standard of care,
805145/2014 YUSUFF, CECILIA vs. EL-ESHMAWI, AHMED M. Page 8 of 15 Motion No. 003
8 of 15 [* 8] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 12:16 PM INDEX NO. 805145/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024
as was the medical treatment rendered to the decedent post-transplant, and was not the proximate
cause of the decedent’s alleged injuries and subsequent death.
In opposition to the motion, Plaintiffs have raised triable issues of fact sufficient to rebut
the Defendants’ prima facie showing as to whether the donor heart was suitable for transplantation,
and whether the donor heart was an appropriate match, based on the expert affirmation of a board-
certified Thoracic Surgeon, whose name is redacted. Plaintiff’s expert opines, with a reasonable
degree of medical certainty, based on a review of the medical records of the decedent and the heart
donor, deposition transcripts, and the Defendants’ submissions in support of their motion, that the
Defendants deviated from good and accepted medical care, and proximately caused decedent’s
injuries and death.
The expert opines that the standard of care in heart transplants in 2012 required the
appropriate selection of a donor heart to match with a recipient, and to ensure that the heart was of
sufficient quality to prevent graft dysfunction or other causes of transplant failure. The Plaintiffs’
expert opines that it was a departure from good and accepted medical care to transplant the heart
of a donor who had a medical history of risk factors which included smoking and alcohol use,
chest trauma, cardiac disease and/or hypertrophy, recent hypotension or hypoxemia, and advanced
chronological age. Significantly, the Plaintiff’s expert opines that the donor heart should have
been disqualified.
The Plaintiffs’ expert further notes that in addition to the aforementioned cardiac disease
risk factors, the donor suffered devastating, life-ending injuries as a result of a motorcycle accident
that occurred while the donor was not wearing a helmet. As a result of the accident the donor was
in a comatose state for an indeterminate period before being found; suffered brain death due to
intracranial bleeding and swelling; and sustained a traumatic injury to the right chest. According
805145/2014 YUSUFF, CECILIA vs. EL-ESHMAWI, AHMED M. Page 9 of 15 Motion No. 003
9 of 15 [* 9] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 12:16 PM INDEX NO. 805145/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024
to Plaintiffs’ expert, the standard donor selection criteria required that there be no history of chest
trauma, and that brain death of the donor is associated with an increased risk of ischemia and
reperfusion injury.
Contrary to the opinion of Drs. Argenziano and Farr, Plaintiffs’ expert notes that the
echocardiogram on its face indicated it was limited and potentially incomplete and/or inadequate,
and that in such circumstances, the Defendants should not have ignored clear contraindications
from other sources of information - namely, the angiogram and visual inspection of the heart,
which showed left ventricular cardiac hypertrophy. The Plaintiffs’ expert concludes that given the
angiogram and visual results, it was incumbent upon the Defendants to treat the donor heart as one
with left ventricular cardiac hypertrophy. The expert also opines that in conjunction with the other
risk factors noted above, Defendants should have been aware that transplanting a hypertrophied
donor heart was a departure from the standard of care, posing unacceptable risks to the decedent.
Lastly, the Plaintiffs’ expert opines that the enormous mismatch between the weight of the
donor, who weighed 253 lbs., and the decedent who weighed 139 lbs., was well outside acceptable
bounds for a patient who had an LVAD placement, and further constituted a departure from the
standard of care.
The Court finds that the respective experts of Plaintiffs and Defendants have provided
affidavits of equal strength, supported by the facts in the record, addressing the essential
allegations in the bill of particulars and setting forth their opinions with a reasonable degree of
medical certainty (see Roques v Noble, 73 AD3d 204). Thus, although Defendants met their
initial burden of establishing their prima facie case, the affidavit of Plaintiff’s expert established
the requisite nexus between the malpractice allegedly committed by defendants and plaintiff's
injury, thereby rebutting the Defendants' prima facie showing (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68
805145/2014 YUSUFF, CECILIA vs. EL-ESHMAWI, AHMED M. Page 10 of 15 Motion No. 003
10 of 15 [* 10] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 12:16 PM INDEX NO. 805145/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024
NY2d at 324; Mignoli v Oyugi, 82 AD3d 443 [1st Dept 2011]); Polanco v Reed, 105 AD3d 438
[1st Dept, 2013]). “Summary judgment is not appropriate ... [when] the parties [submit]
conflicting medical expert opinions because [s]uch conflicting expert opinions will raise
credibility issues which can only be resolved by a jury” (Cummings v Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr., 147
AD3d 902, 904 [2d Dept 2017], quoting DiGeronimo v Fuchs, 101 AD3d 933 [2d Dept 2012]
[internal quotation marks omitted]; see Elmes v Yelon, 140 AD3d 1009 [2d Dept 2016]; Leto v
Feld, 131 AD3d 590 [2d Dept 2015]).
As to the Defendant Mount Sinai Medical Center, Plaintiffs have raised issues of fact as
to the medical care and treatment provided by Dr. Pinney, Dr. Anyanwu, Dr. El-Eshmawi, and Dr.
Pawale, all of whom were employees of Mount Sinai Medical Center. Plaintiffs’ expert opines
that these Defendants were involved in pertinent decisions and treatment rendered in 2012 in
selecting and approving the donor heart for the decedent. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ allegations against
Mount Sinai Medical Center sounding in vicarious liability cannot be dismissed. It is well-settled
that a hospital or other medical facility is liable for the negligence or malpractice of its employees
(see Hill v St. Clare’s Hosp., 67 NY2d 72 [1986]).
However, the Court notes that dismissal is warranted as to Dr. Milla since the branch of
the instant motion seeking summary judgment against Dr. Milla is unopposed by Plaintiff.
The Defendants also seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ lack of informed consent cause of
action. A Defendant moving for summary judgment on a lack of informed consent claim must
show (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto
and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment and
the alternatives (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have
undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed; and (3) that the lack of informed
805145/2014 YUSUFF, CECILIA vs. EL-ESHMAWI, AHMED M. Page 11 of 15 Motion No. 003
11 of 15 [* 11] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 12:16 PM INDEX NO. 805145/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024
consent is a proximate cause of the injury (Koi Hou Chan Yeung, 66 AD3d 642, 643 [2d Dept
2009]).
Here, the Defendants have established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment
on the Plaintiffs’ lack of informed consent cause of action based on the expert opinions of Drs.
Argenziano and Farr, the documented consent discussions in the records, including the decedent’s
prior consent for evaluation and transplant; consent for LVAD and transplantation; written
communications in the records concerning these discussions; the testimony of Cecilia Yusuff
regarding the discussion of risks and alternatives; which indicate that the decedent made an
informed decision in consenting to surgery after considering the relevant risks, benefits and
alternatives.
The Court finds, however, that in opposition Plaintiffs have rebutted Defendants’ prima
facie showing based on Plaintiffs’ expert’s opinion that the standard of care when obtaining
informed consent prior to performing a heart transplant “is to inform the recipient as to the quality
and suitability of the donor heart....”, and discussing and explaining whether any defects are
present which would be expected to affect the chances of a successful transplant or graft
dysfunction or other complications. Plaintiffs’ expert opines that the standard of care was not met
here since Defendants did not inform the decedent that the proposed donor heart had defects
rendering it unsuitable for transplant, and only discussed with the decedent various general risks
connected with a heart transplant, including death.
Plaintiffs’ claim that some of the Defendants, specifically Drs. Anyanwu and El-Eshmawi,
were unqualified because they did not have American board certification must be dismissed. As
opined by Drs. Argenziano and Farr, there is no requirement that a physician obtain American
board certification to practice medicine in New York. The Defendants completed the relevant and
805145/2014 YUSUFF, CECILIA vs. EL-ESHMAWI, AHMED M. Page 12 of 15 Motion No. 003
12 of 15 [* 12] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 12:16 PM INDEX NO. 805145/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024
requisite training, passed the required testing, and were properly licensed and credentialed. In
opposition, Plaintiffs’ expert does not refute Defendants’ experts’ opinion, and thus, fails to raise
a triable issue of fact warranting dismissal on this issue. The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ expert
likewise does not address the opinions of Defendants’ experts that in the post-operative period,
subsequent to implantation of the donor heart on May 9, 2012, Defendants’ care and treatment of
the decedent was in accord with accepted standards of care. Thus, these claims must also be
dismissed (see Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d 18 [2d Dept 2011]).
Defendants’ assertion that Plaintiffs’ expert is unqualified to offer opinions regarding the
care and treatment rendered to decedent because it is outside the expert’s medical specialty is
rejected. The Plaintiffs’ expert’s affirmation clearly states, among other things, that he/she “was
in practice at Indiana University Health/Methodist Hospital, where [he/she] was actively involved
in heart and lung transplant and mechanical circulatory support.” The Court finds that the
background, knowledge and experience of the expert, as set forth in the affirmation, indicate that
the expert is qualified to render an expert opinion based on the facts of the instant case involving
a heart transplant.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment
pursuant to CPLR 3212 is granted to the extent of the following:
a) dismissing all claims in plaintiff’s complaint against Federico Milla;
b) dismissing all claims of malpractice relating to post-operative care rendered to the decedent;
c) dismissing all claims based on lack of training and experience;
d) dismissing all claims by the Plaintiffs that the Defendant physicians were not qualified to treat decedent because they did not obtain American board certification; and it is further
805145/2014 YUSUFF, CECILIA vs. EL-ESHMAWI, AHMED M. Page 13 of 15 Motion No. 003
13 of 15 [* 13] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 12:16 PM INDEX NO. 805145/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that that the caption is amended to delete the name of
Federico Milla;
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the
caption to read as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------X CECILIA YUSUFF, As Administratrix of the Estate of MOHAMMED FAROUK YUSUFF, and CECILIA YUSUFF, Individually,
Plaintiffs, Index No. 805145/2014
-against-
AHMED M. EL-ESHMAWI, AMIT AUDUMBAR PAWALE, ANELECHI ANYANWU, SEAN PINNEY, MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
and it is further;
ORDERED, that within twenty (20) days of entry of this order, counsel for plaintiff shall
serve a copy of this order with notice of entry upon all parties and the Clerk of the Court (60 Centre
Street, Room 141B) and the Clerk of the General Clerk’s Office (60 Centre Street, Room 119),
who are directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order; and it is further
ORDERED, that service upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General Clerk’s
Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse
and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible a the “E-Filing” page on
the court’s website at the address www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh).
ORDERED, that in all other respects Defendants’ motion is denied.
805145/2014 YUSUFF, CECILIA vs. EL-ESHMAWI, AHMED M. Page 14 of 15 Motion No. 003
14 of 15 [* 14] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2024 12:16 PM INDEX NO. 805145/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2024
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
9/6/2024 $SIG$ DATE KATHY J. KING, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED DENIED X GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
805145/2014 YUSUFF, CECILIA vs. EL-ESHMAWI, AHMED M. Page 15 of 15 Motion No. 003
15 of 15 [* 15]