.jpg)
Senior Trial Partner Yuko A. Nakahara and Partner Stephen C. Lanzone successfully obtained Summary Judgment in Queens County Supreme Court in a case where Plaintiff presented to MCB’s client Hospital Emergency Department after suffering a stroke and being left unresponsive for most of the day on a sofa. Upon arrival, the plaintiff was intubated for airway protection, and upon admission, redness and induration were noted on her sacral area. Nevertheless, during the plaintiff’s three-week admission, she did not develop a pressure ulcer and was discharged in stable condition to a codefendant rehabilitation center. She returned to MCB’s client Hospital several weeks later after exhibiting altered mental status, and a stage 2 sacral ulcer was noted upon admission. Despite continued immobility and the preexisting ulcer, the plaintiff’s sacral ulcer only marginally grew. She was again discharged in stable condition several weeks later to a codefendant facility. She returned once again for the final admission at issue, exhibiting a large and unstageable sacral ulcer upon admission, which was debrided at MCB’s client Hospital and exhibited signs of healing prior to discharge.
On behalf of the Hospital, ICU and medicine attending physicians, and wound care personnel, MCB filed a motion for summary judgment. MCB utilized a surgical critical care expert to argue that MCB’s clients’ records clearly demonstrated that all indicated ulcer prevention measures were ordered, observed and carried out. The expert further opined that the plaintiff’s pressure ulcers were not only in evolution upon plaintiff’s initial presentation due to prolonged immobility, but that her acute condition and treatment for critical illness made pressure ulcer progression unavoidable. Further the lack of significant progression at MCB’s client hospital was evidence of the exemplary care rendered there.
Plaintiff opposed with an expert Affirmation, which argued that pressure ulcers cannot occur in the absence of patient abuse and neglect. Plaintiff’s expert further mischaracterized defendant testimony to argue that the clear documentation of skin protection protocols was unreliable. The court granted our motion in its entirety, finding that plaintiff’s expert Affirmation was speculative, conclusory, and its assertions unfounded in the record and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.