Balgobin v Jamaica Hospital Medical Center
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Medical malpractice and nursing home resident-rights liability arising from the alleged failure to prevent and properly treat a pressure ulcer while the plaintiff was treated at a hospital and then a nursing home.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted summary judgment to Jamaica Hospital Nursing Home Company, Inc. on the medical malpractice claim and the Public Health Law § 2801-d claim [creates liability for injury caused by deprivation of a right conferred by contract, statute, regulation, code, or rule], and granted summary judgment to Jamaica Hospital Medical Center on the medical malpractice claim.
The Appellate Division reversed both orders insofar as appealed from and denied those summary judgment branches for both defendants.
As to the hospital, the plaintiff's expert raised triable issues of fact by disputing whether the hospital departed from accepted care and whether the pressure ulcer was truly unavoidable. As to the nursing home, its expert failed to address evidence suggesting the ulcer had not healed by discharge and failed to establish compliance with 10 NYCRR 415.12(c)(2) [requires nursing homes to provide necessary treatment and services to promote healing of pressure ulcers], so the nursing home did not meet its prima facie burden.
Background
The plaintiff sued the hospital and the nursing home for, among other things, medical malpractice and violation of Public Health Law § 2801-d [creates liability for injury caused by deprivation of a right conferred by contract, statute, regulation, code, or rule]. He alleged that the defendants negligently failed to prevent and treat his pressure ulcer during his admissions at their respective facilities.
Lower Court Decision
The trial court granted the nursing home's motion for summary judgment dismissing the medical malpractice and Public Health Law § 2801-d claims against it, and granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment dismissing the medical malpractice claim against it.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed both orders insofar as appealed from. It held that the hospital, although it made a prima facie showing through an expert opinion that there was no departure and that the ulcer was unavoidable, was not entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff's expert presented supported, nonconclusory opinions creating fact issues on departures from accepted care, including the use of head-of-bed elevation in the pressure-injury prevention plan, causation, and avoidability. The court further held that the nursing home failed to make a prima facie showing because its expert did not adequately address record evidence suggesting the ulcer remained unhealed at discharge and did not establish that the plaintiff received the treatment and services required under 10 NYCRR 415.12(c)(2) [requires nursing homes to provide necessary treatment and services to promote healing of pressure ulcers].
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that summary judgment is usually inappropriate in medical malpractice cases when qualified experts offer competing opinions supported by the record. It also emphasizes that a defendant moving for summary judgment must confront adverse record evidence and fully satisfy its prima facie burden. In addition, it distinguishes a Public Health Law § 2801-d claim from ordinary malpractice by recognizing that the statute focuses on deprivation of resident rights rather than solely on deviation from accepted medical practice.
Hospitals and nursing homes cannot win summary judgment in pressure-ulcer cases where the plaintiff presents a supported expert opinion creating factual disputes, and nursing homes face separate exposure under Public Health Law § 2801-d when they fail to establish that they provided the treatment and services required to protect resident rights.