.jpg)
Senior Trial Partner Rosaleen T. McCrory, Partner Kerona K. Samuels and Associate Edmund T. Rakowski successfully obtained Summary Judgment in Queens County Supreme Court in a case concerning a then 29-year-old female who underwent a vacuum-assisted delivery at 39.6 weeks' gestation at MCB client Hospital. The allegations included a failure to completely remove the placenta, resulting in retained placental tissue and infection, necessitating a subsequent hospital admission. The delivery and manual placental removal were performed by the co-defendant OB/GYN physician, a private attending physician employed by a co-defendant women's health clinic.
MCB moved for Summary Judgment and submitted an OB/GYN expert affirmation in support. The co-defendants did not join in the motion. MCB argued that plaintiff's prenatal care, labor and delivery, and postpartum care were managed by the co-defendant OB/GYN. MCB further argued that the hospital did not employ the co-defendant or hold her out as its employee, and that plaintiff had multiple visits to the co-defendant's office before labor, delivery, and her postpartum care. In addition, MCB argued that the hospital staff properly monitored plaintiff pursuant to the co-defendant's instructions and that plaintiff was discharged from the hospital without signs of uterine infection.
Plaintiff opposed the motion with an Affirmation from an OB/GYN expert. Plaintiff argued that she was at a higher risk for retained placenta based on her age and that her postpartum complaints of bleeding, chills, fever, abdominal pain, and "squeezing sensations" should have made the co-defendant and hospital staff suspicious of retained placenta. Plaintiff's expert further argued that the co-defendant and hospital should have performed an ultrasound during the manual placental removal, even though such imaging is not required for a routine delivery and placental removal, because plaintiff was not a routine patient.
In reply, MCB argued that plaintiff's expert failed to dispute that plaintiff was a private patient of co-defendant, failed to affirm he was familiar with the standard of care regarding retained placenta and diagnosing and treating an infection, failed to comment on co-defendant's custom and practice, and failed to dispute there was no sign of infection at plaintiff’s discharge from the hospital. Furthermore, we argued that plaintiff’s expert opinion that this was not a standard delivery and that an ultrasound was required was speculative. MCB’s Summary Judgment motion was granted, dismissing the plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety.