Senior Trial Partner Rosaleen T. McCrory, Partner J. Elizabeth Sandonato, and Associate T. Edmund Rakowski secured Summary Judgment on behalf of MCB’ s client Hospital in a wrongful death pressure ulcer case in Supreme Court, Kings County. The case involved an 85-year-old decedent who was admitted to the Hospital twice with community acquired pressure ulcers, a prior left above the knee amputation, and an extensive history of peripheral vascular disease.
Plaintiff claimed the Hospital failed to take proper steps to monitor and to promote healing and prevention of decubitus ulcers and failed to promulgate and/or enforce protocols regarding monitoring, healing, and avoidance of decubitus ulcers, viruses, and infectious diseases. In addition plaintiff alleged the Hospital allowed the decedent’s condition to deteriorate and to develop dehydration, malnutrition, infections, and sepsis. The claimed injuries included unstageable pressure ulcers on the sacrum, coccyx, right heel, right lateral leg, and right great toe, right above the knee amputation, multiple infections, sepsis, altered mental status, emotional distress, and death.
MCB moved for Summary Judgment utilizing expert opinions from a vascular surgery expert and an infectious disease expert. Both experts opined the pressure ulcers were arterial ulcers related to peripheral vascular disease. Further, the Hospital chart reflected the decedent’s ulcers did not worsen or deteriorate during the Hospital admission and high-risk guidelines were followed throughout the admission, including turning and repositioning every 2 hours and offloading heels. Concerning the claimed injuries of a right above the knee amputation and wrongful death, the experts argued the decedent's decline and death was a result of an unavoidable progression of numerous comorbidities. Further, the decedent was not a candidate for revascularization surgery given her extensive peripheral vascular disease and, therefore, amputation was the only option. Moreover, the decedent passed away 18 months after discharge from the Hospital.
In reply to plaintiff’s opposition, MCB argued plaintiff’s family medicine expert was unqualified to comment on the case as the expert’s expertise was limited to hospice and palliative care and did not include experience treating patients with vascular illness and the decedent’s other comorbidities. Further, even ignoring the lack of credibility, MCB argued that the expert offered conclusory and speculative opinions that failed to raise a triable issue of fact.