Noble v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Noble v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. 2016 NY Slip Op 31775(U) June 20, 2016 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 501942/12 Judge: Gloria M. Dabiri Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/01/2016 1] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60 INDEX NO. 501942/2012 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/27/2016 At an TAS Te;rm~ ".Pru,t 2.of the Supreme,.Court ofthe State· ofNe:w York, .held, in.an,d for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse~ at Civic. Center, Brot)"J<:ly11, N~.w York, on the· zoihday of June, 2"016. PRE S.EN"T: Justice; - ., --.- - -··-. -.- -.,. . -. -- - --- --.-.-- --- -. --- ---..:x· .DERMOT NOBLE.AS ADMINISTRATOR OF, TI:lE ESTATE OF LO.UISA ~. MITCHELL, Index No. 501942112 Plaintiff, - against·l(m.GSBROOKJEWISffMBDICAL CENTER AND ELi BRY.K,Jvf.D., Defendant. .;, "' --------· .------------.,. ----------.- -x The' following papers-nu:mbered 1 to 4 read on this motion: Papers Numbered Notic~ QfMotion/Orderto Show Cause/ Petition/Cross Motiol). an4 Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed..___ _ _ _ _ _ __ .1-2 ·3-4. Opposing· Affidavits (Affirmations)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Reply. Affidavits (Affitinatiorts)_ _ _ _ _ _ _~-----""""'Affidavit (A:ffi1.111.atl.0n)_ _ _ _ _ _ __, Other·Papets_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Upon the.fot.egoif1,g papers defertdants Kiri.gsbrqqk JewishMedfoal Center (Kingsbrook . . . h,o.spital) and Eli Bryk, M.D. (Dt. Bryk) seek -sutnmary··judgrn.entt pursuant fo .CPLR 3212, 4i;;).nissing the:. complaint against them (MS#2-3,). Tht:fmotions. are unopposed. Plaintiff Dennot Noble·). as administrator of tbe Estate. of LoJ.tisa E. Mitchell, comrrie.nqed tb.i~ a~tion on ot. about July 16~ .2.0 i2 allegjng ~ha~ Kingsbn;>ok hos.pita! and Dr. 1 2 of 7 6 [* 2] Bryk departed fro!D. the ac¢.epted standar<l of .rµedi.cal care: ih..their. treatment of Louisa E. Mitchell (decedent). following, her.right knee·replaceineht .~µrgeiyonJuly 30, 20 l O. l>lafntiff contends that·as,a tesu.It. of this maipractice.the decedent developed a de.ep vein thrombosis (DVT) which resulted in her death onAugu~t4, 201.0. The . cornplaint alleges, inter alii:t; that the def~ii(iall.t.s. foile.d. tQ pres.cribe appropriate medication in the.·ptojJer d'os·age, pr¢s·cribe:.]'.irophylaxis to prevent de~p vein. thrombosis~ .Prescribe. Lovenox ·in ~n appropriate· d,qs~ge based -gpon the ·qecedent's weight, adequatel_y consider the decedent's symptom& at,i.d ·me.di.cal his.tory~ ·perfo1Jn. necessary tests,. timely diagnose .a DVT,. consult with the appropriate specialists~. art4 ·propeily s.upervise and monitor th~.. de.cedent. In support ofits·motfoh for silm:maryjudginent Kingsbrook hospitat,.st,tpp,lies. a copy .of the ·pieadings·,. th·e transcript of the ex;'.lr,nination :before trial of Dr. Bryk,, th<;? decedent's .medical records. from Kingsbrook.hospital and the aftlrinatiqn o:fD~. Jeffrey Dennk$i~. Dr. :Oermksian; who is a physician board certified in ortl).op.edic surgery; opines th~( all care . and treatment render.edh.Y Kingsbtookhosplta:I was medically.appropriate:and in f.l:C~ot.d.ance with th~ accepted stand:ards of'care .. He· notes that Qn ~lily 3·0;.2010,. followingthe total right kIJ.ee- Teplacement swg~ry,, Dr. Beyke· appropriately pr~scribed Lovenox 3:0 rtig pos.t-operatively, twic<;;::a day, a~ an prophylactic anticogulant On Augu·st 4,.2010 ·&t 11 :3.QAM the; dec~<;lent . . . . sµfff;red a.pulmonary embolism (PE) aS'a result.of aDVT·and died. Dr. De~sian maintains tl;lat ther~. w~re no d.ocumented clinical signs o.fproblems iil the loW,~r .extremitites· - ·s4~h as 2. 2 3 of 7 6 [* 3] pain o:r warmness~, that Kingsbtopk hospi411 staff appropriately administered.fue.:prescdbed . .. ' dosage of Loven.ox to· tqe. de~~c.lerit, ~nd that. no acts of MY .of the. employees. ·or staff of kirigsbr.ook hqspital prqximately cf!,µs~d injury to. the decedent. Moreover, ..Dr. Dermksian· avets that the dec.edent was a patient of Dr, a·ryk, her private.-attending; and that, therefore, . . D1\ Bryk was. responsible. for tlie. dec¢dent's care and treatment, which included the. pr¢scription of me4.icatioh post'.'"opetatiVely'. In support of his. mqti.bti for sumtIJ,aryjudgment Pr. Bryk supplies, inter alta, .a copy of the ·pfoa<jings,. the Report. of Autop$y dated August 5, 2010, and the. affirmatfon of'Dr. Howard Luks~ ,a physid~q \vho is:board. certiffoc'l in orthopedic surgery. Dr; Luks;not.es that the decedent rec,eived :Uiiedical c1¢aranc~ for knee. surgery 1 on. July ·26( 2010· fr.om Dr. Mehra, which :in duded a. tnegici:J.l history of hyp~rteusion, ane.mi~i and smoking. Dr. Luks contends that neither hypert~nsion,. a history of smokin15 or 013teoarthdtis are:dsk factors fot .a DVT' or PE. Dt. Luks indiCates that the defendant'performed a total right knee arthroplasty -0n July 30, 2010 without complication.and $ta~ed th~ decedent.on 30 mg ofLovenox ev.ery 12:hours to prevent a DVT. Dt .. Luks opiµeS'that, in 20.l.0~ th~.standard dose of Lovenox was 30 :mg·every 1.2 4ours, as a propbyl~x'hi.follQwingkhee replacement sur~ery. He asserts that '811 increased dosage, based·µpon hody weight, was nqtthe·standard of ~are . .H¢ mi:tintainsthat ) the decedent was closely rrionito;red each day fbllowiQ:g her surgery, that: she did µot exhibit' any.symptoms of a D.VT or~ PE.until 11 ::26 A.M. on August 4:1 2010, wh~n.sh~ began to have. Due to·severe osteoarthrit~s·with vari:Js, deformity ofboth kne.es. 1 3 3 4 of 7 6 [* 4] di{fiCl.d_cy breathin.g);md became unre.sponsive. The autopsy:report lists the.cause of death.~s DVT 9f lower ex;tremit.ies. with plilmo.nary thromboe1riboiism folioWing right knee replacement for osteoarthritis·. Dr. Luks avers that DVT is att accepted' and tecogri'ized. risk .of knee replac·ement surgery and: as in this casei often occurs withoti,t warning . Further, he contends, that Pr...Bcyk' s tre.atment ofth~ decedeht was consistent whh tl,ie a,ccep~ed sta,ndard of care at all.times and did not ·cause or ,contribute to the:.decedent'·s death. . . .. . .. DISCUSSiON A defenda:o.t.ntoving for &urrtm~ryjl,ldgrnent has. the initial burden of establishing that he or,she did not depart from good and a,tcepted practice, or that, if.ther~ was a ·departure, it: was.not.a·proximate·:cause.· of the· plaintiff's inj,uties (Zito. v'Ja.r.(remski,, S4 ADJd T069 ~ I 070 [20'1 l]; Dien v Seltzet\ 116 AD3d 9 Io,. 911 [2.014]). "'T.o.. ~ustain this burden,, the defendant. must address and ·rebut any·specific alleg!'.ltions of m;:ilpractke setJorth in the plaintiffs bill of.particufars""(Kol Hou.Chan v Yeung, ·66 AD3'd 642, 64·~ [200.9]} Where the defendant. doctor makes.a prima facie: ·showing th~t tl;lere was no:departur~ and that any d<;:parture was not a proximate: cause of plaintifP.s1njury~ the burden.then shift$·.to the plaintiffto rebut such showing by raising a.. triablejssue o(fact as fo both· th~ dep.arture ahd:Gau~ation .(Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d L8' (2011]). A failure to establish·prima· f&ciie entitlem~nt to· sununary judgment, however, requires a denial of' the inotiort, ·regardless: of the su,f:ffoiency .of the 4 --------···-··--·-·--- ... 4 5 of 7 6 [* 5] oppositiqn (DeGiOrgio y Racan-el/i, lS6-AD3d 734, 73.8- [2..0.16]; see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 6KNY2d ~20 [198.6]). Here,. Dr. Jeffrey Dennksiart establjshes ·prima fa¢ie tb,at Kingsbrook hospital, ·by its staff, did not.depart from the :st~dard of ~are ~n. its tre·atl)'Ient of the. decedent. Specifically; the:affirm·atfon.ofDr. D¢tmksfart demonstrates th~t'the de.cedent.was underthe·Qare of Or, Bryk and: that the hospit~l :staff propetly treated the decedent accord,ing to Dr .. Bryk;:s ihstructfons (Fink v DeAnge.lfs, i 17 AD3d 89.4 [2nd. Dept 2014];· HiU v St.. Clare-'s Hosp., ·67 NY2d 72~ 79' [ 198 61). However, the:.opinioli o"f Dt; Luks. that Dr .. Bryk's tteaJrt.J,ent of the decedent was· ·consistent with the accepted standard of·¢ate and. did not con,tri~ute to the decedep.t'.s 'death is. . conciusory and,. thetefote., insufficic;nt to establish pritnafdr;ie enthkment to :summary judgment as .a matter of law. Significa~tly, Dr .. Luk$ do.es nQt.. addt'e$S ~Ilee;atfons, ·contained in her hi°ll of particulars~ tP,at Dr. Bcyk fail.eel th~ plaintlff's to pres crib~· appropriate andne.cessacy deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. (Hutchinson vBernst~tn, 22.AD3d 527, 527 [2nd Dept ·2oosj; see ·wasserman v Carella, 307 AD24. 225 [1st Dept 200.3]). Herei plaintiff's claim iS not explicitly limited to pr¢~criptfoh prophyla~is, yet Dt, Luks does not .comment on whether· non-drug relate4 DVT -ptophylaxi~. were tequfred· and; ff so, .inw.fomented, or whether the lack of such other.prophylaxis inea:sµre was not a. prox.imate cause of. injury to th~· decedent., In addition, white· Dt. Luks addresses the:sigrtificance of th~ dec~d~nt's hypertension~. history· of smoking 5 6 of 7 6 and oste·oarthtitis, ·he: fails to qiScus·s. th~ [* 6] dece.dent's··history of"aI}emja. as it.relates to th~ ne.ed .for DVT prophylaxis:; Finally, the expert'-'s contentiOrr that :a DVT. occured herein ·without atiy signs or symptoms:. does .not support a 'finding that Dr. Bryk took all appropri.ate. ·steps ·to prevent a DVT, which.· is. the grav!lfl'Ien ·of the.plaintiff$ claim (see Winegrad.v New York University Medical Center., ·64 NY2d 851, 853 (1.985]; Tefrcmovq.v..F.inklr;m,. 4.S: Ad3'd 512 [2007]). Accor,dingly. it.is ORDERED,. tha:t, the mottcm· of Kingsbro.ok Medical Center·for sunurtary judgment.is· granted:(MS#2), th~·.clai1n$,· ~gairt:?t Kingshr().ok M.edif;al Center ate :dismfased· aml such p.arty is severed, frpni the ac.tion; anc:l it. is. furtl:ier ORDERED, that the mo.tion.ofEli :Sryk~. M.D.. is denied (MS#3)~. arid it is further ORDERED, th~t the caption is amenderj to n~ad. as follows: ~ -. - - - . , -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "'·.., - - - - - -' -· - - - '" -X DERMOT· NOBLE.AS AD.M.lNIStRATORO.F THE ESTATE OF LOUISA.E. MITC1-IELL, J,llaintift:. Eu BRYK, M.D . , - - -·- - ""' - - --- - - ---- - Defendant -- ~ - - - ~ --- ---.~ ---~ 6 7 of 7 6

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.