In the early morning of January 15, 2017, plaintiff was admitted to defendant Adirondack Medical Center (“AMC”) in active labor. There, less than two hours later, she gave birth to a healthy infant without the use of pain medications or the need for other interventions. Approximately two hours later, plaintiff sought to leave her hospital bed for the first time to use the restroom. Plaintiff and her nurse differ in their recollections as to the degree to which plaintiff was provided and/or accepted assistance and direction in walking to and from the restroom. It is undisputed, however, that plaintiff experienced a syncopal episode after exiting the restroom and that she awoke on the ground with the nurse on top of her. No related diagnostic imaging was performed prior to plaintiff being discharged the next day.
Following her discharge, plaintiff obtained a CT scan of her lumbar spine at a local emergency room, which did not reveal any fracture or dislocation, and she was prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, ice and cushion support for a sacral contusion. Her primary care physician continued to manage her treatment thereafter but ordered additional imaging to be performed. On March 15, 2017, plaintiff underwent an MRI at Canton Potsdam Hospital, which was found to be unremarkable by defendant Matthew Smith, a radiologist employed by defendant St. Lawrence Radiology Associates, P.C.
Based upon Smith’s reading, plaintiff’s primary care physician subsequently prescribed her a course of physical therapy. Plaintiff later reported that certain aspects of the prescribed physical therapy, such as manual manipulation, were extraordinarily painful and that, despite gaining some relief from certain aspects of the therapy, she had continuing discomfort.
On May 5, 2017, plaintiff met with a tailbone specialist, who diagnosed her with a compression fracture of her coccyx, performed certain pain management injections and continued her existing treatment, but discontinued her previously prescribed physical therapy. In addition to ordering new imaging, the specialist undertook an independent review of plaintiff’s prior imaging and concluded that the March 2017 MRI clearly revealed her coccyx fracture. It was later discovered that certain views of that MRI, including those that revealed the fracture, were uploaded into the system utilized by Smith in an allegedly improper manner. Plaintiff thereafter sought the services of a spinal surgeon, who performed a coccygectomy – removal of the coccyx – in September 2017.
Plaintiff ultimately commenced medical malpractice actions against AMC and Smith, among others, essentially alleging that AMC failed to prevent and respond to her fall, and that Smith failed to properly diagnose her fracture, each thereby causing and/or exacerbating her injury. Following joinder of issue, consolidation of the actions and discovery, AMC and Smith separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Plaintiff opposed. The New York Supreme Court denied AMC’s motion in its entirety and generally denied Smith’s motion. AMC and Smith separately appealed.
The State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department stated in its December 24. 2025 Memorandum and Order: “Citing to plaintiff’s complaints of dizziness and nausea, plaintiff’s experts opined that she was experiencing fluid volume deficit; hospital notes subsequent to the fall indeed reflect a possible nursing diagnosis to that effect. Relying on plaintiff’s complaints, the existence of fluid volume deficit and a perceived spike in her baseline blood pressure just prior to the fall, plaintiff’s experts concluded that she was at an increased risk of falls. Given that increased risk, the experts viewed the assistance provided by plaintiff’s nurse to have fallen below the standard of care, which, they opined, required the nurse to walk beside plaintiff at all times with one arm behind her and one arm in front of her. Plaintiff’s experts concluded that such positioning should have prevented and/or helped better brace plaintiff’s fall insofar as the nurse would not have needed to perform the more dramatic maneuvering that she did, which created unnecessary additional momentum for the fall and resulted in the nurse falling on top of plaintiff. Both also agreed that, given plaintiff’s complaint of tailbone soreness following the fall, the standard of care required diagnostic imaging be ordered. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff and according her the benefit of every reasonable inference from the record proof (see Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]), we agree with Supreme Court’s assessment of the issues of fact that remain.”
“We turn next to Smith’s motion for summary judgment, which was dedicated to causation. The thrust of plaintiff’s complaint against Smith is that his misdiagnosis of her condition resulted in a delay in her receiving proper treatment for her coccyx fracture and also caused her to undergo painful and inappropriate physical therapy … the issue on appeal as it relates to Smith is whether he met his initial burden of demonstrating that his misdiagnosis did not cause plaintiff any harm. We find that he failed to do so … Missing from his [Smith’s expert’s] opinion is any explanation as to how those various modalities would be appropriate to treat plaintiff’s fracture. Notably, when plaintiff’s fracture was ultimately diagnosed, her treating physician immediately ordered that physical therapy be discontinued … Relatedly, Smith’s expert appears to have ignored important medical records … Finally, the expert’s affidavit demonstrates either an incorrect understanding, or intentional misrepresentation, of critical facts, suggesting that any delay in plaintiff’s surgery caused by Smith’s misdiagnosis is of no moment because, he claims, the surgery did not improve plaintiff’s condition … The foregoing failures render the expert’s affidavit manifestly conclusory and, accordingly, it was insufficient for Smith to shift the burden to plaintiff on summary judgment.”
Source Cota v. Adirondack Medical Center, CV-24-1197.
If you or a loved one suffered harm due to medical negligence in New York or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a New York medical malpractice attorney or a medical malpractice attorney in your state who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click on the “Contact Us Now” tab to the right, visit our website, or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
