Ostrov v Rozbruch
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Ostrov v Rozbruch 2010 NY Slip Op 33754(U) July 12, 2010 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 116707/2006 Judge: Alice Schlesinger Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SCANNED ON 712112010 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK ALICE SCHLESINGER PRESENT: PA . - -' COUNTY L Index Number : 116707/2006 INDEX NO. OSTROV, DEBORAH MOTION DATE VS. ROZBRUCH, JACOB M.D. MOTION SEQ.NO. SEQUENCE NUMBER : 003 MOTION CAL. NO. - SUMMARY JUDGMENT in this motlon to/for Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause - Affldavlta - Exhibits ... Answering Affldavlta - Exhiblta Replying Affldavltr Dated: Check one: JUL 1 2 2010 .' FINAL DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: { ' DO NOT POST Y 0 REFERENCE ART I( [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK DEBORAH OSTROV, Plaintiff, -againstJACOB ROZBRUCH, M.D., and MEDICAL CENTER, F Index No. 116707108 Motion Seq.Nos. 002 /and Oo3 SCHLESINGER, J.: In this medical malpractice action, the plaintiff Deborah Ostrov has brought suit against her orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Jacob Rozbruch, for a left knee replacement performed on June 7, 2004. She has also sued Beth Israel Medical Center, where Dr. Rozbruchperformedthis surgery. All discovery has been completed, and both defendants have moved for summary judgment. At oral argument held on July 7, 2010, I indicated that the moving papers by Dr. Rozbruch, consisting of multiple affirmations from Dr. Donald Rich, an orthopedist, Dr. Larry Scher, a surgeon who specialized in vascular matters, Dr. Leonard Ralfman, Ms. Ostrov s primary care physician for 30 years, and Dr. Andrew Turtel, her treating orthopedist, made out a prima facie case on behalf of the doctor to the effect that he had not departed from accepted medicaUsurgicalcare in his treatment of the plaintiff. Because of this finding, I further noted that the burden then shifted to the plaintiff to show that legitimatefactual issues existed sufficient to deny the motion. In that regard, I pointed out, without objection from plaintiffs counsel, that the opposing affirmation from plaintiffs expert orthopedist did not take issue with any part of the surglcal-procedure or subsequent care. [* 3] However, the expert opined (at 148) that Dr. Rozbruch had departed from accepted medical care by performing the left knee replacement at all; in other words, the surgery was contraindicated. He based his opinion on: the totality of Ms. Ostrov's prior orthopedic and medical history, which included numerous problems with persistent lower left extremity edema/swelling; two instances of post-operative deep vein thrombosis; left leg numbness following the prior left hip replacement and evaluatedsubsequentto right knee replacement; a long-standing diagnosis of chronic venous insufficiency documented by Dr. Haveson as early as 1999, as well as multiple problems specific to the let? foot and toes, i.e., full thickness pressure sore of the left heel and severe hallux valgus. . This doctor also opined that it was a departure for Dr. Rozbruch to have proceededwithout clearance from B vascular surgeon in the face of Ms. Ostrov's severe vascular disease. She had been cleared by her primary care physician Dr. Raifman. Finally, in connection with a cause of action sounding in informed con$ent, the doctor opined that Dr. Rotbruch had failed to discuss more conservative alternatives with Ms. Ostrov, such as steroid injections, had failed to have her appreciate the effects the surgery would have on her gait in light of the problems she was already experiencing with her gait, and had generally failed to do a fresh reevaluation of Ms. Ostrov's need for surgery after learning of treatment she had received shortly before the scheduled surgery for left foot problems. This orthopedist states that these failures and departures were responsible for the plaintiffs permanent left knee and related injuries.' 'It should be noted that the moving doctor's position, via his experts, is that the plaintiffs continuing problems are the result of her underlying chronic, documented venous insufficiency and lymphedema, not because of any negligence by Dr Rozbruch. 2 [* 4] In reply, counselfor the defendantdoctor argues that these alleged departures were never mentioned before. To the extent that the word "contraindicated" was never used, he is correct. However, there are implicit references to these departures and, as noted at oral argument, in paragraph 7 of the affidavit from the orthopedist Dr. James R. Dickson, presented by Beth Israel in its moving papers before the plaintiff flled her opposition, Dr. Dickson dismisses as a "red herring" the idea that the plaintiffs venous Insufficiencies before surgery (i.e., her "prior condition") gave her an "elevated index" for injury. This statement suggests that there was anticipation of such a claim. Nonetheless, I do find that the defense position in its reply that they were never explicitly on notice of these claims does have some merit. However, what concerns the Court more is the limited discussion by the plaintiff8 expert as to why this precise surgical procedure, the total left knee replacement, was contraindicated in light of the plaintiffs history and clinical picture and also as to the mechanism of the injury. With regard to the latter, there is lacking in specifics how or why Ms. Ostrov's left leg deteriorated to the extent it allegedly did as a result of the left knee replacement. It could be argued, and counsel for Dr. Rozbruch did vigorously argue, that these omissions should result in my granting Dr. Rozbruch's motion. However, since Ifind that the medicine here is complicated and that all the physicians heard from are unclear 88 to precisely what happened in terms of the result, I believe the better practice would be to learn more. The procedure which I will direct will also give the defense an opportunity to focus in on the claimed departures about which they now explicitly have notice. 3 [* 5] Therefore, Iam directing both sides to submit supplemental expert affirmations to clarify the medical opinions asserted by the respective parties so this Court can better understand the complex medical issues and determine whether issues of fact truly exist. Neither counsel is limited to further elaboration from the experts already heard from. Since this is summertime when physicians and othets are often away, I am giving plaintiff until September 10, 2010 to submit their supplemental papers, and the defendant can have until October 8, 2010. As for Beth Israel Medical Center, its motion for summary judgment is granted and all causes of action against it are dismissed. The claims against Dr. Rozbruch are personal to him. No one could seriously argue, nor do I believe plaintiff really does, that Dr. Rozbruch s actions were so obviously egregious as to have compelled the hosp&al to intervene between this private physician and his patient. No other, separate departures are alleged against Beth Israel. Accordlngty, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion by defendant Beth Israel Medical Center (sequence 003) to dismiss the complaint herein is granted and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety a8 against said defendant, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly in favor of defendant Beth Israel Medical Center; and it is further ORDERED that the action is severed and continued against the remaining defendant Jacob Rozbruch, M.D.; and it is further 4 [* 6] ORDERED that Dr. Rozbruch s motion for summary judgment (sequence 002) is held in abeyance pending the submission of further papers as specified herein. This constitutes the decision and order of this Court, Dated: July 12, 2010 JUC 1 2 201Q J.S.C. 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
