Cozine v Maimonides Medical Center
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Medical malpractice and lack of informed consent arising from testosterone therapy (hormone replacement therapy).
The Supreme Court, Kings County denied the defendant-physician’s motion for summary judgment and declined to preclude the plaintiff’s expert testimony.
The denial of summary judgment as to the medical malpractice and lack of informed consent claims against the defendant-physician.
The defendant made a prima facie showing of no departure from accepted medical practice and adequate informed consent through expert opinions and records; the plaintiff’s expert response was speculative and unsupported by the record, failing to raise a triable issue of fact.
Background
Plaintiff Dawn Cozine, individually and as administrator of the decedent’s estate, sued for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent based on defendant Lev Paukman’s treatment of the decedent with testosterone therapy. Paukman moved for summary judgment, arguing compliance with accepted standards of care and that informed consent was properly obtained; alternatively, he sought to preclude portions of the plaintiff’s expert testimony.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County (Genine D. Edwards, J.) denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him and denied, in the alternative, his request to preclude certain testimony of the plaintiff’s expert.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed, on the law, with costs. The Appellate Division granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the defendant-physician. The court held the defendant established prima facie that he did not depart from good and accepted medical practice through expert opinions and medical records, and that informed consent was properly obtained by advising the decedent of the treatment and reasonably foreseeable risks. The plaintiff’s expert affidavit was deemed speculative and unsupported, and thus insufficient to raise a triable issue. The alternative requests to preclude expert testimony were denied as academic.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that to defeat a well-supported medical malpractice summary judgment motion, a plaintiff must submit a non-conclusory expert opinion grounded in the record; speculative or unsupported opinions will not raise triable issues. It also underscores that documented, adequate disclosures regarding treatment and reasonably foreseeable risks can warrant summary judgment on lack of informed consent claims.
Defendants can secure summary judgment in medical malpractice and informed consent cases by presenting competent expert proof and records showing no deviation and adequate disclosure, while plaintiffs must counter with specific, record-supported expert opinions—not speculation.