Summary Judgment Granted in Case Alleging Wrongful Death due to Overwhelming Infection as a Result of Pressure Ulcers

Summary Judgment Granted in Case Alleging Wrongful Death due to Overwhelming Infection as a Result of Pressure Ulcers

Senior Trial Partner Rosaleen T. McCrory, Partner Elizabeth J. Sandonato, and Associate Edmund T. Rakowski obtained summary judgment on behalf of MCB’s client, a hospital, in a medical malpractice action in which the plaintiff alleged that the development and deterioration of multiple pressure ulcers caused infection, multi-system organ failure and wrongful death. 

The decedent presented to the hospital with an extensive medical history which included severe peripheral vascular disease (PVD), diabetes mellitus, end stage renal disease on hemodialysis, left arm arteriovenous fistula, hypertension, anemia, seizure disorder and bilateral lower extremity chronic stasis dermatitis with multiple non-healing left lower extremity ulcers due to PVD. The pressure ulcers developed before the hospital admission on both of the decedent’s legs, sacrum and right buttock, with gangrene. A left above-the-knee amputation was necessitated and properly performed at the hospital.  

In support of summary judgment, MCB’s expert opined that the hospital's care and treatment was at all times reasonable and appropriate, the pressure ulcers did not develop during the hospital admission, and there was no evidence demonstrating proximate cause. In opposition, plaintiff's counsel submitted a redacted expert’s affirmation.

In granting summary judgment, the Court found prima facie entitlement to summary judgment was demonstrated through our expert’s affirmation and submissions, accepting in total our arguments that   there were no departures from good and accepted medical practice and no proximate causation. Plaintiff was unable to produce evidentiary proof sufficient to establish the existence of a material issue of fact. Procedurally, the Court found the plaintiff's initial opposition was not in proper evidentiary form because the plaintiff failed to provide the Court with an unredacted copy of their expert’s affirmation. This defect was corrected by the plaintiff in a subsequent motion for renewal and re-argument. This motion was aggressively opposed, resulting in its denial, upholding the grant of summary judgment on the merits.