NEGRON v. ST. BARNABAS NURSING HOME

9771, 300429/08, 9772.

105 A.D.3d 501 (2013)

963 N.Y.S.2d 101

2013 NY Slip Op 2468

ELBA NEGRON, Respondent, v. ST. BARNABAS NURSING HOME et al., Appellants.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.

Decided April 11, 2013.


Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered March 9, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon reargument, denied defendant nursing home's motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint as against the nursing home.

In this medical malpractice and negligence action, defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, among other things, their expert affirmation and medical records (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 325 [1986]). The medical records support defendants' expert's opinion that decedent's chronic skin ulcers, gangrene and above-the-knee amputations, were the unavoidable result of his preexisting, chronic conditions, as well as other risk factors.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff submitted the conclusory and speculative affirmation of an unnamed expert who failed to identify specific departures made by the nursing home, when other actions should have been taken by the nursing home and by whom, and how the results would have been different had those actions been taken (see Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 327; Abalola v Flower Hosp., 44 A.D.3d 522 [1st Dept 2007]). These failures are especially troublesome, given plaintiff's expert's concession that decedent's preexisting conditions placed him at an increased risk for the conditions at issue. Moreover, the expert failed to address the evidence supporting vascular involvement and failed to establish that the nursing home's negligence, and not the natural progress of decedent's diseases and conditions, was a substantial factor in producing the injury (see Aparicio v Goldberg, 94 A.D.3d 502, 503 [1st Dept 2012]; Mortensen v Memorial Hosp., 105 A.D.2d 151, 158 [1st Dept 1984]).


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases