The case of Hiegel v. Orange Regional Medical Center addressed claims of medical malpractice, wrongful death, and loss of services following the death of Charles Brennan. His estate alleged that multiple medical providers failed to administer appropriate treatment during a suspected stroke, depriving him of a chance at recovery. The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the claims, ruling that the defendants failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment.
On November 20, 2014, Charles Brennan experienced symptoms he believed were indicative of a stroke and called 911. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) transported him to Orange Regional Medical Center (ORMC), where EMS observed worsening symptoms and alerted the hospital with a stroke alert. Upon arrival, Brennan was evaluated by ER physician Dr. Pamela Murphy and neurologist Dr. Elena Kaznatcheeva. Both doctors determined that Brennan’s condition had improved and did not administer tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), a clot-busting drug commonly used in stroke treatment.
Brennan’s condition deteriorated throughout the evening, and by the following morning, he had suffered a pontine stroke resulting in locked-in syndrome. He passed away in April 2017. His estate, represented by plaintiff Michelle Hiegel, filed suit against the hospital and medical providers, asserting that failing to administer tPA constituted a departure from accepted medical practice and contributed to Brennan’s death.
The appellate court determined that the defendants failed to meet the legal threshold required for summary judgment. Specifically:
Expert testimony was insufficient. Each defendant submitted expert affirmations that were either conclusory or failed to address key facts. Notably, Dr. Napchan, testifying on behalf of Kaznatcheeva and Middletown Medical, P.C., did not address discrepancies in the evidence regarding Brennan’s condition and failed to rebut specific allegations raised in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars.
Reliance on disputed facts undermined the defense. The defendants’ experts assumed Brennan's symptoms improved after EMS arrival, justifying the decision not to administer tPA. However, this claim was contradicted by EMS reports and not reconciled in the expert opinions, undermining their evidentiary value.
The hospital’s expert, Dr. Leifer, also failed to address critical allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint and did not sufficiently explain why tPA was not administered despite the stroke alert and ongoing symptoms.
The affirmations submitted by Murphy and her affiliated entities were found to be conclusory. The court determined these did not adequately address the plaintiff’s specific claims or the underlying factual record.
Because the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the appellate court reinstated the claims against all parties without needing to assess the plaintiff’s opposition papers.
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment and reinstated the claims for medical malpractice, wrongful death, and loss of services against all named defendants. The ruling emphasized the necessity of comprehensive and fact-specific expert testimony to support summary judgment in medical malpractice cases.
Medical negligence cases require thorough review of medical decisions and outcomes. Our team at Whitcomb, Selinsky, PC assists clients with navigating complex medical malpractice claims, from investigation to litigation.