Rodriguez v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Rodriguez v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. 2013 NY Slip Op 30045(U) January 10, 2013 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 110005/05 Judge: Douglas E. McKeon 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 111412013 [* 1] MOTION SEQ. NO f MotionlOrder to Show Cause ing Amdavits -Affidavits - Exhibits - Exhibits ..................................................................... 3 WSlTION 0 CASE DISPOSED MDENIED GRANTEDIN PART 0OTHER 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................... MOTION IS: GRANTED c SUBMIT ORDER ] 3. CHECK IFAPPROPRIATE: ................................................ 0SETTLE ORDER 0DO NOT POST [7 FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE I . CHECK ONE: [* 2] CORPORATION, NE& Dcfendant s niotioii for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting s u r n e p $ ~ @ denied as follows: This is an action to recover damages for alleged medical malpractice arising out of treatment rendered to plaintiff at Bellevue Hospital Center during an admission from June 3, 2004 through June 14,2004. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that as a result of an improperly administered epidural catheter by Bellevue anesthesiologists, the failure to timely remove the cpidural after surgery and the failure to order tests and neurological consultations during plaintiffs post-operative period at Bellevue, she sustained sensory and motor deikits to her lower extremities, including right foot drop. On June 3, 2004, plaintiff presented to Bellevuc Ilospital Center for a left-sided heinicolectoiny to remove her colonic polyps. On June 7, 2004, she underwent the procedure. lniimcdiatcly prior to the procedure, Dr. Cory Schneider, a third-year resident, admillislered a thoracic spinal cpidural to plaintiff for post-operative pain managemcnt. Within hours of waking up from surgery, plaintiff complained of bilateral lower extremity weakness, numbness and pain on June 7, 2004 in the post-operative period. Although the left leg problems resolved soon aftcr her initial complaint, her right leg problems did not resolve. She continued to complain and on June 9, 2004, OFFICE [* 3] the epidural catheter was ordered to be discontinued. Numerous physical examinations perfornicd on plaintifi s right lower extremity throughout her stay at Bellevuc confirmed she had decreased strength, decreased motor function, loss of sensation, paresthesia and restricted range olmotion. By Junc I 1, 2004, plaintiff was noted as having a right foot drop. Studies conducted at Bellcvue later confirmed that plaintiff had sustained nerve damagc to her right lower extremity. Plaintiff was transferred to the Bellevue Hospital Center Rehabilitation Unit on June 16, 2004 and remained in rehabilitation until June 29, 2004. After she was discharged, plaintiff continued at home with physical and occupation therapy. To date, her right lower extremity injuries are not resolved. Notably, plaintiff has a history of prior back pain radiating down her right leg as a result of a prior car accident but there is no evidence of a diagnosis or complaints consistent with the specific allegations made in this action. Defendant argues that HHC is entitled to dismissal of plaintiff s complaint because plaintiffs allegations are medically implausible. Defendant bases its argument on the testimony, hospital record and upon the affirmation of Dr. Jonathan E. Singer, a physician board certified in anesthesia. Dr. Singer opines that the anesthesia services provided to plaintiff, including administration of. a thoracic epidural, cannot be the proximate case of any of her alleged sensory and motor defkits to her lower extremities. Defendant s expert explains that if- the epidural had been placed into a spinal nerve, plaintiff would havc reported an irnmcdiate and very painful paresthesia ofthe affected nerves and then injecting medication througli the epidural catheter would have causcd an additional reaction of excruciating pain. Additionally, the correct placement of the epidural catheter was confirmed by injecting a test dose immediately after it was placed with no negativc reaction reported. Furthermore, he opines that the sensory and motor dysfunctions alleged following the June 7,2004 surgery at Bellevue was not proximately causcd by the insertion of the epidural or [* 4] as a result of using epidural anesthesia for post-operative pain managcment. Plaintiff opposes dcfendant s motion with the support of an expert affirmation from a physician who is board certified in anesthesia and pain management. Plaintiffs expert opines that plaintiffs right lower extrcrnity neurological deficits were proximately caused by the inisadministration of the thoracic epidural administered on Junc 7,2004 based on a constellation of factors, including but not limited to, the timing ofthe onset of her right lower extremity neurological defkits, the anatomy and bodily distribution of the plaintiffs neurological deficits, the correlation bctweeri abnormal EMG findings relative to plaintiff s right lower extremity on June 2 1,2004, the plaintiffs complaints regarding her right lower extremity, and the physician s abnormal clinical examination findings. In reply, defendant sets forth that plaintiffs expert s opinion is conclusory and speculative and does not defeat defendant s entitlement to summary judgment. It is further argued that any postoperative maIpractice allegations should not be considered by this court as they were not included in plaintiffs bill of particulars. This court allowed plaintiff to submit a sur-reply to address new arguments raised in defendant s reply. Plaintiff specifies paragraphs in the bill ofparticulars indicating the post-operative allegations wcre made and that defendant can not claim that prejudice lies here. Upon a full review of. the submitted papers, this Court deterniines that the plaintiff has demonstrated that material issues of fact exist, such that defendant s iiiotion for suiiimary judgment is denied. Additionally, plaintiff s bill of particulars specifies allegations of malpractice prior to and post surgery and this court will allow tlic post-operative claims to be pursued. A defendant moving for summary judgment in a medical inalpracticc action niust make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that in treating the [* 5] plaintiff there was no departure from good and accepted tiicdical practicc or that any departure was not the proximate cause of the injuries allcgcd. See Rocjzies 11~ Nobel, 73 AD3d 204,206 (1 st Dep t 2010). To satisfy thc burden, a defcndant in a medical malpractice action must present expert opinion testimony that is supported by the facts in the record and addresses the essential allegations in the bill ofparticulars. Id, If the movant makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require trial of the action. Id. Upon a full review of the submitted papers, this court determines that the plaintifl has demonstrated that material issues of fact exist, such that defendant s motion for summary judgment is denied. It cannot be determined as a matter of law that the defendants did not depart from accepted medical standards based upon the facts and sequence of events in this case. Under the totality of circumstances, this court holds that it is for the trier of fact to determine whether the defendant departed f rom the accepted standards and whether those departures were a proximate cause of the plaintiffs right lower extremity neurological deficits. Accordingly, defendant s motion is denied. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. Date: January 10,20 13 New York, New York _ . l l l . Douglas E. McKeon, J.S.C.
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.
