Zappia v. Cai: NY Court Allows Malpractice Suit Over Heart Ablation

The case of Zappia v. Cai involved a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by Nora Zappia and Anthony Zappia against Dr. John Jun Cai and his medical practice. The plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Cai negligently performed an electrophysiology (EP) study and atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, resulting in injuries to Nora Zappia. The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment, finding that factual disputes required resolution by a jury.

Background and Legal Issues

Nora Zappia, then 27 years old, underwent an EP study and subsequent AF ablation performed by Dr. Cai. After the procedure, she developed inappropriate sinus tachycardia, which required a pacemaker and resulted in long-term injuries. The plaintiffs asserted that the EP study and ablation were unnecessary and that Dr. Cai deviated from accepted medical standards.

Dr. Cai moved for summary judgment, contending that there was no departure from the standard of care and that any alleged departure was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. In opposition, the plaintiffs submitted an expert affidavit disputing the necessity of the ablation and asserting that the procedure caused the complications.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the following findings:

• Burden of proof in medical malpractice summary judgment: The defendant bears the initial burden of demonstrating either compliance with the applicable standard of care or lack of causation between the alleged deviation and the plaintiff’s injuries.

• Battle of the experts: The court found that the expert affidavits submitted by both sides directly conflicted, particularly on whether the arrhythmia observed during the EP study was clinically significant enough to justify ablation. This conflict created a classic "battle of the experts," which is a factual issue reserved for jury determination.

• No entitlement to partial summary judgment: The court rejected the defense’s argument that it was entitled to summary judgment on individual factual allegations in the plaintiffs' bill of particulars that were not expressly addressed by the plaintiffs’ expert. Instead, summary judgment is only appropriate where a distinct theory or claim is entirely unaddressed.

• Plaintiffs’ expert sufficiently addressed core claims: The plaintiffs’ expert opined that the EP study itself deviated from the standard of care because the findings were not clinically significant and did not justify proceeding with ablation. This opinion was adequate to raise a triable issue on the claim of negligence.

Conclusion and Ruling

The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment, allowing the plaintiffs’ claims of medical malpractice to proceed to trial. The court reiterated that conflicting expert opinions on standard of care and causation are for the jury to resolve.

Legal Guidance for Medical Malpractice Claims

Medical malpractice cases often hinge on complex medical evaluations and expert testimony. Our team at Whitcomb, Selinsky, PC assists clients with evaluating negligence claims, managing litigation strategy, and pursuing accountability in cases involving surgical and diagnostic errors.