Background Facts
In 2005, due to a history of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis, John J. Young (decedent) was prescribed Coumadin by his primary care physician. On November 19, 2013, the decedent presented to the defendant South Bay Cardiovascular (South Bay), complaining of chest pain. Tests conducted revealed that the decedent had a low heart rate and varying degrees of atrioventricular (AV) block. On February 18, 2014, the decedent presented to the defendant Eric R. Uyguanco, an employee of South Bay, for an electrophysiologic consultation. Uyguanco noted that the decedent took 7.5 milligrams of Coumadin five days a week and 3.25 milligrams of Coumadin two days a week, and determined that the decedent had evidence of sick sinus syndrome and AV node disease, for which Uyguanco recommended a pacemaker placement procedure. Uyguanco advised the decedent to stop taking Coumadin four days prior to the procedure, and then resume taking it thereafter, due to the risk of bleeding during the procedure.
On March 19, 2014, the decedent presented to Good Samaritan Hospital for the pacemaker placement procedure. The decedent’s international normalized ratio (INR) level at that time was noted to be 1.2. The decedent’s pacemaker was placed without complication, and the decedent was instructed to resume taking Coumadin that evening. The decedent was discharged from Good Samaritan on March 20, 2014.
Within days of the decedent’s discharge from Good Samaritan, he told his daughter that he did not feel right and felt that there was something wrong. On March 23, 2014, the decedent presented to the emergency department of the defendant Southside Hospital (Southside), complaining of chest pain. The decedent was evaluated by the defendant Ganesh S. Kamath, a cardiologist employed at South Bay, on call at Southside. Kamath diagnosed the decedent with acute coronary syndrome and unstable angina and then referred the decedent to the defendant Jeetinder K. Gujral, a hospitalist employed by Southside.
Gujral discontinued the decedent’s use of Coumadin and referred the decedent to undergo a right ventricular lead revision/repositioning of the pacemaker procedure to be conducted by Uyguanco. Following the procedure on March 24, 2014, after examination of the decedent, both Gujral and Kamath recommended that the decedent resume his Coumadin intake. On March 27, 2014, the decedent’s INR level was noted to be 1.17. Thereafter, Gujral directed the decedent to take 5 milligrams of Coumadin. However, after the decedent’s discharge from Southside on March 27, 2014, and upon returning home, he returned to taking 7.5 milligrams of Coumadin.
On March 29, 2014, the decedent returned to Southside by ambulance. The decedent complained of pain and swelling in his right leg, which was confirmed by examination. The decedent’s lab results showed an INR level of 1.27, and the decedent was diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis (DVT). On April 3, 2014, the decedent was discharged to Bellehaven Center for Rehabilitation & Nursing Care. On April 4, 2014, he was transferred back to Southside after complaining of swelling and pain in his left leg. Upon presentation to Southside, it was discovered that the decedent’s INR level was 4.71. It was determined that the decedent’s left common femoral, femoral, and popliteal veins were nearly completely occluded and the visualized segments of the posterior tibial and peroneal veins were occluded.
The decedent was thereafter transferred to Stony Brook University Hospital for treatment. On April 7, 2014, the decedent underwent a catheter-directed thrombolysis. On April 10, 2014, a CT scan revealed a large left-sided hemorrhagic stroke. Thereafter, on April 11, 2014, the decedent died.
The Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department stated in its February 25, 2026 decision: “Here, the South Bay defendants submissions, including Uyguanco’s deposition testimony, the decedent’s medical records, written consent forms signed by the decedent, and the affirmation of the South Bay defendants’ expert, were sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the decedent was informed of the reasonably foreseeable risks, benefits, and alternatives to the implantation of the pacemaker and that a reasonably prudent person in the decedent’s position would not have declined to undergo the surgery had he or she been fully informed (see Ciceron v Gulmatico, 220 AD3d at 735; Pirri-Logan v Pearl, 192 AD3d at 1151). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).”
Source Young v. Kamath, 2026 NY Slip Op 01091.
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.
