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
Emergency medical services and medical malpractice arising from emergency childbirth response, including whether municipal emergency medical technicians (EMTs) owed plaintiffs a special duty, whether the City was protected by governmental function immunity, and whether ambulance personnel departed from Regional Emergency Medical Advisory Committee (REMAC) protocols.
The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied the separate motions of the City defendants and Empress Ambulance Service, LLC for summary judgment dismissing 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's EMTs knew their alleged inaction could lead to harm, whether they followed or violated REMAC protocols, and whether their conduct was discretionary for governmental immunity purposes. 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 branch of the motion.
Background
This action arose from the birth of twins to plaintiff Denise Bryant on August 30, 2020. After Bryant went into labor at about 2:00 a.m., Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) emergency medical technicians (EMTs) arrived at 2:04 a.m., and the first twin, E.M., was delivered at 2:10 a.m. Empress Ambulance Service, LLC paramedics arrived at about 2:14 a.m. The parties disputed what happened after the first birth, including whether Bryant was told not to push and whether responders 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 was found to have multiple birth defects, including hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants' delay in delivering I.M. caused severe injuries and loss of a better outcome.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court denied both the City's and Empress's motions for summary judgment in full, allowing the negligence and malpractice claims to proceed.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the order by dismissing only the fourth cause of action for negligent hiring, training, and retention against the City. It otherwise affirmed. The court held that factual disputes remained over whether the City owed plaintiffs a special duty under Cuffy v City of New York, whether the EMTs' conduct was shielded by governmental function immunity under Applewhite v Accuhealth, Inc. and Valdez v City of New York, and whether Empress's paramedics departed from applicable standards and caused injury. A two-justice partial dissent would have granted summary judgment to the City on governmental immunity grounds.
Legal Significance
The decision underscores that a municipality may be denied summary judgment in emergency-response cases where plaintiffs identify specific emergency medical protocols and present evidence that responders may have disregarded them. It distinguishes cases where only general assessment standards were cited, holding that alleged violations of specific REMAC directives can create triable issues both on special duty and on whether the conduct was truly discretionary for governmental function immunity purposes. It also confirms that conflicting expert opinions on emergency medical care and causation generally preclude summary judgment in malpractice actions.
Where emergency responders' obligations under childbirth protocols are genuinely disputed, courts may leave to a jury whether the responders violated mandatory protocol, assumed a special duty, and are protected by governmental immunity. However, unopposed negligent hiring and training claims can still be dismissed even when the core negligence and malpractice claims survive.