.png)
Senior Trial Partners Charles Schechter and Jacqueline D.Berger and Associate Gabriella M. Verdone successfully obtained Summary Judgment in a medical malpractice action in which the Plaintiff alleged that MCB’s clients, a Hospital and pulmonology attending physician, were negligent in their treatment of a patient who presented to the Hospital with diabetic ketoacidosis, septic shock, and persistent lung infections. The Plaintiff claimed that the alleged inadequate treatment over the course of a two-month admission caused him to suffer a left wrist drop, radial nerve palsy, and pressure ulcers.
A Motion for Summary Judgment was filed, supported by two expert Affirmations. Specifically, MCB argued that appropriate positioning and skin-care measures were implemented, as shown in the Hospital record. The Plaintiff opposed the motion utilizing two expert Affirmations, alleging that Defendants did not implement the required treatment for skin integrity and proper positioning during the Plaintiff’s hospital admission, resulting in skin breakdown and radial nerve palsy/wrist drop, and further alleging that, had proper care been implemented, the Plaintiff would not have suffered those injuries. In reply, MCB argued that it was improper to use hindsight reasoning and that a bad result does not indicate that medical malpractice occurred. MCB further argued that Plaintiff failed to defeat our prima facie entitlement to Summary Judgment by failing to identify any departures causing the Plaintiff’s injuries, and that the Plaintiff had ignored documentation in the Hospital chart indicating all appropriate measures were implemented in an attempt to prevent skin breakdown and any nerve injury.
After oral argument, the Court agreed that Plaintiff’s expert opinions were insufficient to refute Defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the action was dismissed and the motion for Summary Judgment was granted in its entirety.