The plaintiff filed a New York medical malpractice action on behalf of the decedent seeking damages for his wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering allegedly caused by defendants’ delay in detecting and properly treating decedent’s stroke following his admission to defendant St. Elizabeth Medical Center (SEMC).
The Defendants Slocum-Dickson Medical Group (SDMG) and Lev Goldiner, M.D. (Goldiner defendants), and defendants SEMC, Mohawk Valley Health System and Shwe Win, M.D. (SEMC defendants) separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. The New York Supreme Court granted the motion of the Goldiner defendants in its entirety, and granted in part the motion of the SEMC defendants by dismissing all claims against those defendants except for certain direct claims against SEMC. The plaintiff appealed.
In its November 21, 2025 Memorandum and Order, the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department stated: “We agree with plaintiff that the court erred in granting the motion of the Goldiner defendants with respect to the malpractice, wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering causes of action against Goldiner … It is well settled that a defendant moving for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action has the burden of establishing the absence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice or that the plaintiff was not injured thereby … Once such a defendant meets the initial burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact, but “only as to the elements on which the defendant met the prima facie burden” … Here, although the court properly determined that the Goldiner defendants met their initial burden on their motion with respect to the issues of deviation from the accepted standard of medical care and causation, plaintiff raised triable issues of fact in opposition through the submission of the affidavit of an expert … Indeed, plaintiff’s expert raised issues of fact as to when decedent began experiencing symptoms of a stroke and whether, at the time Goldiner was informed about decedent’s condition, decedent was still within the period of efficacy for certain treatments such that Goldiner should have promptly ordered those treatments. Where, as here, a nonmovant’s expert affidavit “squarely opposes” the affirmation of the moving parties’ expert, the result is “a classic battle of the experts that is properly left to a jury for resolution”.”
“Inasmuch as the causes of action against SDMG alleged vicarious liability for the actions of Goldiner, we further conclude that the court erred in granting the Goldiner defendants’ motion with respect to the medical malpractice, wrongful death, and conscious pain and suffering causes of action asserted against SDMG.”
“We also agree with plaintiff that the court erred in granting the motion of the SEMC defendants with respect to the medical malpractice, wrongful death, and conscious pain and suffering causes of action asserted against Win, and we further modify the order accordingly. Even assuming, arguendo, that the SEMC defendants met their burden on their motion to that extent, we conclude that plaintiff raised issues of fact whether decedent may have had a better chance of recovery had Win immediately informed Goldiner about decedent’s condition and the results of the relevant MRI.”
“Regarding SEMC’s direct liability, even assuming, arguendo, that the SEMC defendants met their initial burden on their motion to that extent, we nonetheless conclude that plaintiff’s expert raised triable issues of fact in opposition as to whether SEMC, through its nursing staff, deviated from the accepted standard of medical care by failing to ensure that decedent received a neurological consult on the day he was admitted to SEMC or, at a minimum, that decedent’s primary care physician was informed that there was no such consult available during the weekend and that his order for a neurological consult would not be honored until three days after decedent’s admission.”
“[W]e conclude that the court also erred in granting the motions of the Goldiner and the SEMC defendants with respect to the derivative cause of action against them, and we further modify the order accordingly.”
Source Caruso v. St. Elizabeth Medical Center, CA 24-00940.
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.
