Dyena Rashada v Sadia N. Ahmed, M.D., Ahmed & Ahmed Physicians, P.C., doing business as Suburban Rheumatology, and Eric L. Snitzer, M.D.
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Medical malpractice involving an alleged failure to timely diagnose and treat synovial sarcoma in the plaintiff's left hand after a 2018 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study.
The lower court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the separate cross-motions of the Ahmed defendants and Dr. Snitzer for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The Appellate Division modified the order by granting part of Dr. Snitzer's cross-motion and dismissing the claim against him insofar as it alleged negligence for failing to recommend a biopsy of the hand mass.
The court held that a radiologist does not assume a general duty to schedule, urge, or recommend further testing or to diagnose or treat the patient's underlying condition. The remainder of the claims stayed in the case because the plaintiff failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment, the Ahmed defendants and the plaintiff submitted competing expert proof creating factual issues, and Dr. Snitzer's alleged misinterpretation of the 2018 MRI presented a triable causation dispute.
Background
The plaintiff was treated for several years by rheumatologist Sadia N. Ahmed, M.D., and Ahmed & Ahmed Physicians, P.C., doing business as Suburban Rheumatology, for pain and swelling in her left hand. In 2018, due to worsening symptoms, the Ahmed defendants ordered an MRI that was interpreted by radiologist Eric L. Snitzer, M.D. His report identified a mass in the hand but did not indicate cancer. The plaintiff continued treatment for about three more years. In 2021, after further worsening, another MRI was performed and a nonparty radiologist recommended a biopsy. The biopsy revealed synovial sarcoma, and the plaintiff's left hand ultimately had to be amputated. The plaintiff alleged that the Ahmed defendants negligently failed to diagnose and treat the cancer and failed to recommend a biopsy after the 2018 MRI, and that Dr. Snitzer negligently misread the 2018 MRI and failed to recommend a biopsy.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, Erie County, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied both the Ahmed defendants' cross-motion and Dr. Snitzer's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-claims.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously modified the order only as to Dr. Snitzer. It granted his cross-motion in part and dismissed the negligence claim against him based on an alleged failure to recommend a biopsy. The court otherwise affirmed. It held that the plaintiff did not meet her own initial burden for summary judgment because the deposition testimony she submitted raised factual issues on deviation from the standard of care. It further held that the Ahmed defendants met their prima facie burden through Dr. Ahmed's detailed affirmation, but the plaintiff's rheumatology and plastic surgery experts raised triable issues on deviation and proximate cause. As to Dr. Snitzer, the court held that he established prima facie lack of causation through an orthopedic surgical oncologist's affirmation, but the plaintiff's plastic surgeon raised a factual issue by opining that the delayed diagnosis reduced the chance of limb-salvage surgery. Even so, the court ruled that the biopsy-recommendation theory against Dr. Snitzer failed as a matter of law because a radiologist has no general duty to urge further testing.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces several New York medical malpractice summary judgment principles. A plaintiff seeking summary judgment must establish both deviation and proximate cause, and her own submissions can defeat the motion if they reveal factual disputes. A defendant physician may satisfy the prima facie burden with a sufficiently detailed, specific, and factual personal affirmation that addresses each negligence theory in the bill of particulars. The case also underscores that disputes between qualified experts typically create jury questions. Most notably, it confirms that, absent additional circumstances, a radiologist's duty is limited and does not generally include recommending or pressing for additional testing such as a biopsy, or otherwise managing the patient's treatment.
The plaintiff's malpractice claims against the treating physicians survived because competing expert opinions created factual issues, and her claim that Dr. Snitzer misread the MRI also survived. But the court dismissed the separate theory that Dr. Snitzer was negligent for not recommending a biopsy, holding that a radiologist ordinarily has no general duty to direct further testing or treatment.