I.M., an Infant by his Parent and Natural Guardian, Denise Bryant, et al. v The City of New York et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Medical malpractice and municipal emergency medical services liability, including whether emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and paramedics violated Regional Emergency Medical Advisory Committee (REMAC) childbirth protocols and whether the City could claim governmental function immunity.
The Supreme Court, Bronx County denied the separate summary judgment motions of the City defendants and Empress Ambulance Service, LLC seeking dismissal of the amended complaint.
The Appellate Division modified the order only to dismiss the negligent hiring, training, and retention claim against the City, and otherwise affirmed the denial of summary judgment.
The court found triable issues of fact as to whether the City owed plaintiffs a special duty, whether the EMTs followed or departed from the REMAC protocols, and whether their conduct was discretionary or noncompliant with mandatory directives. As to Empress, competing expert opinions created fact issues on departure from accepted practice and causation. The negligent hiring, training, and retention claim against the City was dismissed because plaintiffs did not oppose that part of the motion.
Background
This action arose from the birth of twin infants to Denise Bryant in the early morning of August 30, 2020. After Bryant went into labor, Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) emergency medical technicians (EMTs) arrived at about 2:04 a.m., and the first twin, E.M., was delivered at 2:10 a.m. Empress Ambulance Service paramedics arrived around 2:14 a.m. The parties disputed what happened next, including whether Bryant was told not to push and whether defendants should have attempted to deliver the second twin, I.M., at home or in the ambulance. Bryant and E.M. were transported to North Central Bronx Hospital, where I.M. was delivered at about 2:50 a.m. I.M. was then transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit and diagnosed with multiple birth defects, including hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants' delay in delivering I.M. caused serious injuries and loss of a chance at a better outcome.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court denied both defendants' motions for summary judgment in full, allowing the malpractice and negligence claims to proceed.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division, First Department modified the order by dismissing only the fourth cause of action for negligent hiring, training, and retention against the City. It otherwise affirmed the denial of summary judgment to both the City and Empress. The majority held that factual disputes remained concerning special duty, the meaning and application of the REMAC protocols, and causation. A partial dissent would have granted summary judgment to the City on governmental function immunity grounds, concluding that the EMTs' decisions were discretionary as a matter of law.
Legal Significance
The decision underscores that in municipal emergency-response cases, a city may still face liability where plaintiffs identify specific protocol-based duties and present evidence that first responders may have failed to follow them. Even where emergency response is a governmental function, summary judgment is inappropriate if factual disputes remain over whether a special duty existed and whether the responders exercised protected discretion or instead disregarded governing protocols. The ruling also confirms that dueling expert opinions on standard of care and causation will generally defeat summary judgment in medical malpractice cases.
A municipality is not automatically immune from suit just because EMTs were performing emergency services; where plaintiffs present evidence of specific childbirth protocol violations and causation, those factual disputes can require a trial. However, unopposed negligent hiring-type claims may be dismissed even when the core malpractice and negligence claims survive.