Karp v Catholic Health Sys. of Long Is. Inc.

[*1] Karp v Catholic Health Sys. of Long Is. Inc. 2010 NY Slip Op 50045(U) [26 Misc 3d 131(A)] Decided on January 14, 2010 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 14, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, JJ
570712/08.

Marilyn Karp and Augosto Morselli, the Estate of Richard Lippold, deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

against

Catholic Health System of Long Island Inc., iniv. and d/b/a St. Francis Hospital, St Francis Hospital, Inc., St Francis Hospital, Roslyn, NY, Alfred B. Randall, MD, Meyer H. Abbittan, MD, Brian G. Boatman, MD, Leon E. Schwechter, MD, Javier Morales, MD, Gary Freeberg, MD, Jeffrey M. Wolfe, MD, Jonathan Waxner, MD, Alan J. Schecter, MD, Nassau Chest Physicians PC, Brian T. McNelis, MD, Richard Stark, MD, Arena Oncology Associates PC and Physicians Diagnostic Imaging PC, Defendants-Respondents, -and- Interventional Cardiovascular Associates PLLC, Advanced Internal Medicine Group, PC, and Jerome Fass, MD, Defendants.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ernest J. Cavallo, J.), entered June 6, 2008, which granted defendants-respondents' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them.

Per Curiam.

Order (Ernest J. Cavallo, J.), entered June 6, 2008, affirmed, with $10 costs. [*2]

Defendants-respondents made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that they did not depart from good and accepted medical practice in their treatment of plaintiffs' decedent (see Feliciano v New York City Health & Hosp. Corp., 62 AD3d 537 [2009]; Burt v Lenox Hill Hosp., 141 AD2d 378 [1988]; see also Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]).

In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue. The opinion of plaintiffs' purported expert, whose license to practice medicine in the State of New York was previously revoked on the basis that she "suffers a delusional impairment that leaves her unfit to practice medicine," was insufficient to counter defendants-respondents' prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. Even assuming in plaintiffs' favor that the purported expert was competent and qualified to render an opinion on the relevant medical issues (cf. Behar v Coren, 21 AD3d 1045 [2005]; Parese v Shankman, 300 AD2d 1087 [2002]; Jordan v Glen Falls Hosp., 261 AD2d 666 [1999]), the "expert's" assertion that defendants-respondents departed from good and accepted medical practice by prescribing and administering to plaintiffs' decedent a particular anti-coagulant therapy was both conclusory and speculative. Similarly inadequate was the "expert's" assertion that such a departure may have hastened the death of plaintiffs' decedent, who at the time he was treated by defendants-respondents was 87-years-old and suffering from numerous, serious medical issues (see generally Garson v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 41 AD3d 159 [2007]; Bullard v St. Barnabas Hosp., 27 AD3d 206 [2006]). Further, the "expert's" opinion was based on misstatements of the evidence and contained unsupported factual assertions (see Wong v Goldbaum, 23 AD3d 277 [2005]; see also Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542 [2002]; Moore v New York Med. Group, P.C., 44 AD3d 393 [2007]).

Thus, Civil Court correctly granted defendants-respondents summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: January 14, 2010