Summary Judgment Granted in Case Involving Intermediate-Risk Prostate Adenocarcinoma

by | Jun 8, 2020 | Case Results, Medical Malpractice | 0 comments

Senior Trial Partner, Peter T. Crean and Partner, Gregory J. Radomisli’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted dismissing the MCB-named defendant physician from the action, venued in Supreme Court, Kings County. This case involved a then 67 year old plaintiff who presented to our client doctor with intermediate-risk prostate adenocarcinoma.  The plaintiff underwent five CyberKnife radiation treatments between April 20, 2015 and April 24, 2015. The plaintiff experienced some not unexpected side effects after undergoing radiation therapy. Our client doctor instructed the plaintiff to seek urologic attention with his urologist. While under the care of his urologist, the plaintiff underwent additional urological procedures. Since the additional procedures, the plaintiff developed repeated urinary frequency and urgency, with occasional urge incontinence. The plaintiff required occasional catheterization, and has MRSA in his urine.

In the motion, we argued our client took a proper history of the plaintiff and performed a proper physical examination which included a rectal exam of the prostate and that the CT scan and MRI scans that were performed prior to the Cyberknife procedure were done so to ensure that the radiation was being applied to the correct tissue and no additional studies were needed to be performed prior to the Cyberknife procedure. Moreover, we argued treating the plaintiff with 700 cGy per day for five consecutive days is the standard dose for this type of prostate cancer. In addition, our client properly advised the plaintiff as to the risks and benefits of Cyberknife therapy, as well as of alternative treatment, including the option of foregoing treatment, and this information was also imparted to plaintiff’s urologist. Lastly, we argued that our client met his burden of establishing both the absence of any departure from accepted standards of care, and that any alleged departure was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries.

The Court recognized that we met our prima facie burden to establish that our client doctor did not depart from accepted standards of care, and that his alleged acts and/or omissions were not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Court held that although plaintiff’s expert opined that our client departed from accepted standards of care by agreeing to proceed with CyberKnife therapy, plaintiff did not allege that our client improperly administered the radiation.