Kristie M. v. Mercy Hospital: Medical Malpractice Claims Survive on Expert Proof

Kristie M. commenced a medical malpractice action as the parent and natural guardian of her son, Brayden M., an infant. The claims arose from medical care provided following Brayden’s premature birth at Mercy Hospital of Buffalo. The action alleged that agents, staff, and personnel affiliated with Mercy Hospital of Buffalo failed to provide appropriate medical care, resulting in injuries to the infant.

Kristie M. sought damages based on alleged departures from accepted medical practice during the postnatal treatment period. The allegations focused on failures in diagnosis and treatment following Brayden’s premature delivery.

Proceedings in Supreme Court

The action proceeded in Supreme Court, Erie County. Mercy Hospital of Buffalo and affiliated parties moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint. The motion asserted that the medical care provided did not depart from accepted standards of care and that no alleged departure caused Brayden’s injuries.

In support of the motion, Mercy Hospital of Buffalo submitted an expert physician affidavit. The affidavit addressed each allegation set forth in the bill of particulars and asserted that the medical treatment complied with accepted medical practice and did not cause the claimed injuries.

The Supreme Court denied the motion for summary judgment. Mercy Hospital of Buffalo appealed from that order.

Appellate Review of Summary Judgment Standards

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reviewed the order denying summary judgment. The court addressed the applicable burden-shifting framework governing summary judgment motions in medical malpractice actions.

The court noted that Mercy Hospital of Buffalo relied on an outdated standard when framing its arguments on appeal. Under the current standard, a party seeking summary judgment in a medical malpractice action bears the initial burden of establishing either the absence of any departure from accepted medical practice or that any alleged departure was not a proximate cause of injury.

Only after that initial burden is met does the burden shift to the opposing party to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact, and only as to the elements addressed by the moving party.

Evaluation of the Expert Submissions

The Appellate Division concluded that Mercy Hospital of Buffalo met its initial burden through the submission of a detailed, specific, and factual expert affidavit. The affidavit addressed each alleged act of negligence and addressed both deviation from the standard of care and proximate causation.

The court then examined whether Kristie M. raised triable issues of fact in opposition. Kristie M. submitted an expert affirmation that disputed the conclusions reached by Mercy Hospital of Buffalo’s expert. The court determined that the expert affirmation was not vague, conclusory, or speculative and did not misstate the facts in the record.

The court explained that the competing expert submissions created a classic battle of experts. Such disputes are not appropriate for resolution on summary judgment and must be resolved by a jury.

Alleged New Theories of Liability

Mercy Hospital of Buffalo asserted that Kristie M. improperly raised new theories of malpractice for the first time in opposition to summary judgment. The court rejected that argument.

The court reviewed the complaint, original bill of particulars, and amended bill of particulars. It concluded that those pleadings consistently provided notice that the medical malpractice claims were based on failures to properly diagnose and treat Brayden M. following his premature birth. The court determined that the opposition papers did not introduce a new theory of liability and did not result in surprise or prejudice.

The court also explained that, to the extent any theory was embedded within a cause of action, dismissal on summary judgment would require a motion that clearly sought dismissal of that distinct theory. No such motion was made.

The Court’s Decision

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the order denying summary judgment. The court concluded that triable issues of fact existed with respect to both deviation from accepted medical practice and proximate causation, requiring the claims to proceed.

Assistance With Medical Malpractice Matters

If you’re dealing with concerns about medical care or potential medical malpractice, Whitcomb Selinsky PC handles medical malpractice matters. Reach out to our team to schedule a consultation and learn how our team can assist with your situation.