Youmans v Brooklyn Queens Nursing Home, Inc.

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Youmans v Brooklyn Queens Nursing Home, Inc. 2020 NY Slip Op 34339(U) December 29, 2020 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 512980/2017 Judge: Genine D. Edwards Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/30/2020 10:46 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142 INDEX NO. 512980/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2020 At.Part 80 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held In and for the County of Kings; at the Courthouse, located at 360 Adams.Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the 29th day of December 2020. PRESENT: Hoh. Genine D. Edwards Justic~,. Supreme Court --------.---------.---------·--------------------------------,,.----x TABRINA YOUMANS, as Administratrix-of the Estate of ANTHONY DARNELL YOUMANS, and TABRINA YOUMANS, Individually, fodex. No. 512980/2017 Plaintiffs, DECISION/ORDER -againstBROOKLYN QUEENS NURSING HOME, INC., RIVERDALE NURSING HOME, INC. and THE BROOKDALE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant~ .. -------,-----------------.------------------.,---------------:-----x Recitation~ as require~ by CPLR 2219{a), of the papers considered irt the review of this motion: Papers Numbered Notices of Motion andAffimiations in Support............. , ..............•. 1-2 Affirmations in Opposition.............. , ..................... , ........ , ........ .JA Affirmation in Reply ......... , .........................................................·...... 5-6 lrt this action for medical malpractice, defendants Brooklyn Queens Nursing Home, Inc., ("BQNH") and Brookdale University Hospital Medical Center {"Brookdale") move for summary judgment, in motion.sequences #2 and #J, respectively. Plaintiffs oppose both. BQNH requests an order: (1) pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint against BQNH, with prejudice~ on the basis that the care and treatment provided by BQNH conformed With good and accepted medical· practiee, and that the care and treatment provided was neither a proximate cause of, nor a substantial factor in the alleged injuries -and/or damages sustained by decedent; (2) upon dismissal, amending the. caption to Page 1of8 .. ·······-·········--··-··········-·-···-··--------------------- 1 of 8 [*FILED: 2] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/30/2020 10:46 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142 INDEX NO. 512980/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2020 delete .BQNH as a defendant; (3) upon dismissal, severing·the clahns.insofar as asserted against BQNfl;.and (4) .upon dismissal and 5everance, directing the:·entry of judgment in·favor of ;B.QNB. J~to·okdafe. reques~s an order:{l}pursuant to ·cpLR 3,41 I:(a)(S) dismissing claims of neglige·n ce for treatment rendered between January .2 and .February. 10, 2014 at defendant Bro·okdal~ as.untimely pursuant to the statute of limitations·; (2) limiting plaintiffs' claims to the dates ofn~glig¢nce alleged in the pleadings and ptecluding piaintiffs from asserting claims for treatmeh~· Ol,ltside .of the dates alleged; and (3) pursuant to CPLR §3212; granting summary judgr:n.~'1t and ~:Hsmissing the complaint against B:r:ookdale.,.·with pr.ejudic~, ancl dismissing ail cl~ims regafcllng . . . .Srookdale as wit4out merit ·Brooklyn.. Queens,Nursing Home, Inc. BQNH contends it is entitled to i;ummaryjudgment b.ecau.s~.;the:care.andt,r~atm~nt rendered to·Anthony Darnell Youmans ("decederif?j' all three.of his admissions comported".with good and accepted standards of medical practice and did not contribute to caJ.ising bjs .alleged injuries. "A defendant moving for summary j:Udgmen.t in a.medical malpractice action must demonstrate the·absence of any material issues offact with res('.l.e cno at least one of the t!lement.s of a .cause of action alleging medical malpractice: (1) whether the physician d¢viated or departed from accepted community standards of practice, or (2} that such a departure was a prox.imate cause·o(the j:>1aihtiffs:injuries:'' Russell v. -Gara/aio,. -- N >{ .'S .3d --, 2020 N .Y. Slip Op. Oi4 t 3 :(2d.Dept. 2020.); See Sftfkas v. Streiter, 83 A~D.3d. 18~ 918 N.Y.S:.2d.. 176 (2d Dept. 20 IT). "Where a..d~fe~d·antmakes a:prima facie showing:on both derrte:nts,. 'the burden shifts to the plaintiffto. rebut the. deft~ndant's showing by raising a tdabie.'.i·ssue of fact as to both the Page.'2 of8 2 of 8 [*FILED: 3] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/30/2020 10:46 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142 INDEX NO. 512980/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2020 ·deparlure ·ele,meijc~nd the causation element" Russell, ·2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 07413 quotillg Gilmore v... Mihail,.174 A..D.3d 686, 105 N~Y.S.3d 50,4 (2dQept., 20f9),; _See Stukcts, 83 A.P.3d 18. In support·o fBQNH's:contention it submitted, inter ctlia, de~edent',s medical records arid the expert affirmation ofa board certified internist, Vincent P. CJ'arbitelH, M.D.("Dr. Garbitcelli"). Dr; Gai:biteili set forth a detailed account of decedent''s medical.records and explained why the care provided. by BQNH did not depart from accepted standards of medical practice and was· not the proximate cau1;>e of decedent's injuries. Regarding qmsation, Dt. Oarbitelli specifically referencedd~cedent's autopsy report and medical records to·:$µppo:rt..his opinion thatBQNH neither contributed to nor caused decedent's injµries. Further1 Dr. Garbitelli opine_d thatJhe ulcers were. unavoidable-due to:decedent's quadriplegia co.up led with ·his frequent refusal of care, treatment and.Jood. Lastly, Dr. Gatbitelli indicated that it was very. unHkely that decedent's pressure. ulcers caused bacteremfa or septicemia because. immobile pat ients, Hke .decedent, have diminishe.4.citculatioi1 .to and from the area of the pressure "tilc'e:t ln opposition, plaintiffs submitted the regacted ~~pert. ~ffirination ofa board.;certified internist 1• Wh.ile the internist was able to raise triable issµes .of fact as t() deviations and departtires; he failed with respect to caysation. Specifically·, pi'aintiffs'' expett did not opine as to several of Dr. Garbitelii•s assertions, inciuding his opinion as to .the.autopsy report, the unlikelihood that. ulcers caus~d decedent's septi¢emia and dec.edept' s. caµse of death. . ·Con:seqtientl.y~ pl~intiffs_ fai led to raise a triable· i~sue ·o f fac.t .as·to caµsation. v:_ . See Jacob Frank/jn ·_Haspit.~l Medical Cen(er, -N.Y.S3d-; 188 A.0 _:3.d 83'8 (2d Dept 2020}; Lyakho.vtch v. Vernov, 18-5 A:.D.3d 566, .126N.Y:S3d 711.(2d Dept 2020); W(Jgnerv. Parker, 1 Plaintiffs provided an un~redacted expert affirmation to the Court. Page 3of8 3 of 8 [*FILED: 4] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/30/2020 10:46 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142 INDEX NO. 512980/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2020 172 A.D:3.d 9.54i 1QO N. Y.S.3d 280 (2d Dept 2019); Gilmore -v. Mfhail:, 174 A.D.3d 686, 105 N.Y.S...3.~ 504 (2d Dept. 2:019).. .l3QNH violations, al~q argued Jhat it is entitled to. dismissal of.the Claim s r~gatdtng .~4itutory Of note, pla:inHffs,. complaint-alleges that th~. $l~ Eit BQNH viofa~ed ·NewYork Public Heaith Law280l-'d and 2803-c.. Liability unc:lerth~ Public. Health Lawcontemplates inj tiry to the·patient caused by the·deprivation of a right conferred by .contract, statute, regulation, code or rule, .subject to the defense that the facility exercised all care reasonably necessary to .prevent and limit the deprivation ancl injury to. the patie1,1i. See·,Public Health Law 280i-d (I), (2); Gold~..Pcwk;lve. Extended Cqre Center Corp.., 90 A,D.3.d 83J, 93.5 N. Y.S.2d 597 (2d Dept 201.1). But Pr. Garbitelli established, prima fa~ie, that. BQNH d•cJ npt-violate-any contract, statute, re~ul ati on, code or rule and that decedent-was:not il)jurc;d-by cµiy alleg~d viplatinn. See, Moor.e ·\). St..Jame.s. Health Care: Centet:, LLC, 14 r A,D.3c;l 70'l , '3$ N:. Y.S.3d--4.6.4 (2d Dept. 20"16); Novfck \l.·South Nassau·Communities Hosp.., 136-A.D.3d 999, .;z6·N. Y.$,3d 182 (2d Dept 2016). Ahd,plaintiffs failedto establish that decedent'-s injuries·were caused by the deprivations . ' . . oftights afforded to decedent under the Public Health Law. .See: Moore, 141 A.DJd 701; Novick,, 136 A.D,3d 999; Gold, 90 A.D.Jd 833~ .Brookdale University Hospital Center Bro.okdale moved to dismiss as time,.barred plaintiffs' c.l~:bns ~to dect<denes admission to Brookdale from January 2 through February 10,2Q,)4 ("2014 admission"~. Decedent was also a: patient .of Brookdaie from January 13: throti~h Ja:nuary ·28~. 20 i5 ("20 15 -admission"}. "Tu .dismiss:a cause of action pUJ'Suant to· CPLR .321l (a)(S) on the ground that·it iS barred by t he applkable statute of limitations, a defendanthears.the. inhial ,burden· of demonstrating, prima facie;_that the time Within which to commence the actioh ·has e~pired.." Campone v. Panos, Page 4 of8 4 of 8 [*FILED: 5] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/30/2020 10:46 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142 INDEX NO. 512980/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2020 142 A.D.3d l.126, 38 N.Y.S.3d 226 (2d Dept. 2016). ''" ifthe,defendantsatisfies this bur-Oen, the·s~ifts to.the plaintiff to raise a ~ues.tion- to wh~ther lhe·statute of limitations was to.lied or.o.w~r;vI$e inapplicable, or whether the plaintiff acti;ially.-coQ1menced.' the.actioh within the ~ppliGaple ljm"jt(itions period" Id~ Here; Brookdale established that when thi$ action was -commenced on June 30, 2017; the negligence 'and medical malpractice claims related to deceden(s:2014 admission were timeba:rred by the.l,'l.pplicable statute oflirri.itatioris. See CPLR 214-a; CPLR2 l4(5); Piccolo v., 130 A:.D.3d 704, 13 N.YS:3d478 (2d Dept. 2015). lri opposition, plaintiffs argued that the statute·of lim.itatiqns wa;s tolled by the continuous treatment dbctrine; "U.nder..the:-~011tinuous treatmenfdoctrine, th_e .limifatiohs . . UQtiJ perio:d da,es.not begin to run . the e.nd ofthe COW:S~ ·of _treatment if three··concjiti<;>n~ .are m~t: ('1) .the-_p_atieht.epntlnued to ,s~k, an.d in f~ct-obtained, an.actual cci~e oftreatmen.t (rom the. 4~f~ndant physician during tpe relevant.period.; (2)the course of treatment was for the same.-conditions- or ~ornplaints undetlyirig the.plaintiffs medical malpractice claim; and (3) the. treatment is contimJous.'' Wrighf.v. Southhainpton Hospital, 187 A.D.Jd 1242; Bl N. Y.S.3d 216 (2d Dept. 2020). The record is devoid of evidence that decedent soiJght or obtairied a course of treatment. from Brookdale dudrtg the 2014 admission. Thus, the record est~blishes that decedent and defendant'. did not mutually agree upon) or contemplate,.future consultation or treatment after the 20.14..adtnissio·n. See Fraumeni v: OakWoodDental Arts, Ll:C1 1.08·A.D.3d495,:968N.Y.S;2d 56.l ·(2d. Dept ,2013). Moreover~ given that decedent'S-20.14 admission for ·,g unshot wounds. differea frarri the·20 i"5 admission -forre5piratocy distress, _pneuinohia,_feve.r,__;and· shortness of breath, plaintiffs failed to present evidence to suggest that the treatments correlate. See Ceglio v. Bab Nuclear Radiology; P.C, 120 A.D.3d iJ76, 992 N.Y.S.2d 580 (2d Dept. 2014}. Lastly, the Pages of8 5 of 8 [*FILED: 6] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/30/2020 10:46 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142 INDEX NO. 512980/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2020 services provided in 2014 ~d 201 S were discr.e te and complete, See Yanezy. ..Wa(kins, 164 A.D.3d547, 82 N.Y.S.3.d 76 (2d Dept. 201$).. Next, Brookdale moved to limiLplaintiffs' claims tothe dates of n~glig~nce alleged in the. pleadings and to preclude plaintiffs frorri asserting claims for treatment outside .pfthose dates. Broolcdale pqsi_ts tbat .~lthough de·cedent's second admission·to Brookdale;~pahned ·from January 13 through January 28,2015, the verified bill·ofparticulars alleged that Brookdale's medical malpractice and negligence concluded on January. 13, 2015. Brookdale further submits that plaintiffs had the complete medical records wh~.n the su.ppkmental hill qfp~rticulars were served 0n December 12,-2018. The note of issue was file'cf bQ. May 7, 2020. in oppositfon, plaihti°ffs provide a purpotted supplementai bili of particulars, dated ·September 11 , 2020i which expanded the dates·· of alleged negligence arid ad'ded newfojuries. Plaintiffs contend the original verified bill of particulars as to Brookdale reserved their right to, ·a1l}erid or supplement s~e· up to (:lild including .&t the time of trial. However,. once a note of j ssu.{'. has ~n filed,. a:.p.Ja·~ntiff may not serv~ a~-amended 9r supplerneht~l biltofpartjcu~ars \Vithout obtaining le.av~ ofthe court. See Salgad9 v. Town Sports, TJ A.D.3d 898, 901 N.Y.S.2d 325 (2d bept 2010); Rpmanello v. }(Ison, 303 A.D.2d 670.• 756 N.Y,S,2d 657 (2d Dept. ~003). Contrary tb their contention, plaintiffs: are hot entitled to ainend and supplement the bill.<;>f particulars w.ithout)i.rrutation. See Sq1gil;do v.. Tow.ii Spprts Intl. , ?3 A :D..3d 898, 901 N:Y:S:2d 325 (2d.Depj. 20.I Q). Sigriificantly,·plaintiffsfaiJed to sbow~ iiiter~ia~ :a reasonable excuse for their extend~d delay in moving for)eave to serve an amended bill ofparticulars. See .Salgado, 73 A.D:Jd ,898; Sampson v. Contillo, ..~5 .AD.3d 591 , 865 N.Y.S.2d J37 (2d Dept 2008) .. Page 6 ofB 6 of 8 [*FILED: 7] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/30/2020 10:46 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142 INDEX NO. 512980/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2020 .f)n~lly, ~r9ol~dii!e moved for summafy judgment cQOt~ndlngthatall the claims against Bropkd~le sl;lo~lq be disll}i$$ecl sjn~ the··care rend.~red. to. de~d~rifwas within accepted medical care. Jn support.of-its motlon Broo~dale submitted, .inte.r·alj~. de(f~dent's medical rec0rcjs and the -1;p~pert-affinnati.011 ofa board-certified intemi~t, Jeffr~y Nichols,, M,D. ("Dr. Nichols"). D r. Nichols op'ined. that in 2015 ·decedent's nutritional status w~ addr~ssed With tube-feeding. However, there was no factual support for same, Whi'ie Dr. Nichols opined differently as to the t.ube-fe~<fjng in reply, the function of a reply is not to perinit the inovant to introduce new arguments in support of the motion. $ee McKenzie v. Abra}f(JTtl$, 72 A.D.3d 758, 899 N.Y.S.2d 290 (2d :i)ept. 2010); v. Ease Nqs:sau Medic;al Qroup, 270 A.D.2d 381, 704N.Y.S.2d 624 (2d .Dept. ·2000);, Ritt by Ritrv: Lenox Hill Hosp.., 18~ ;\.D.2d 5.Q0,.582·N.Y.S.2d 712.( lst Dept. 19"92) . c ·o nsequentry, Brookdale did not meet its yrima faeie burden of demonstr!iting . :entitlement to,.sutnmary judgment. See Kleinmt:rn v: N.ortfz-Shore University Hosp,, 148 A.D..34 693_, 48.N, Y.SJd 455·{2d Dept. 2017); Thomas v. fiermoso~tw A.D.3d 984;9.73 N.Y.S'.2d 344 (2d Dept. 2013). ·M oreover, Dr. Nichols' opinions regarding deviations and departures from the standard w~re insufficient. Specifically, Or. Nichols merely recounted the tre<,itment rendered. and opine4, 'in a: conctusory inanner; that such tr~afrnent did not represent a departilre froffi. :good and accepted medical practice. See Tomeo v. Beteta, 127A.D.3d1071, 7 N.Y.S.3d 4 72 (2d Dept. 20·l 5); Adcord,ingly1 Brooklyn Queens Nursing Home, Iric.-'s motion for..sutnmary judgment is granted. Bro'okdale University Hospital Medic~!- C_e nter' s.1))otion is granted, in .part, dismissing ·plaintiffs·' .c l_airhs.ofnegligenee for treatinent tendered het'ween January 2 arid February 10, 2014 .anq limitiilg·plaiiltiffs' claims to the.dates of h~gligenee alleged l.n .~he pleadings and precluding Page7of8 7 of 8 [*FILED: 8] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/30/2020 10:46 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142 INDEX NO. 512980/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2020 plaintiffs from asserting claims for treatment outside of the dates alleged, the remainder of the motion is denied. This constitutes the Decision of this Court. Hon. Genine D. Edwards, J.S.C Page 8of8 8 of 8