DePasquale v Staten Island University Hospital
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Medical malpractice—post-operative monitoring and discharge decisions following a cholecystectomy; summary judgment standards based on expert affidavits.
The Supreme Court, Richmond County, denied the physician’s motion for summary judgment.
The denial of summary judgment insofar as asserted against Corneliu Vulpe.
The defendant made a prima facie showing of no departure from accepted standards of care, and the plaintiffs’ opposing expert affirmation was conclusory and speculative because it did not specifically cite record evidence or address the defense expert’s opinions; therefore, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Background
In consolidated medical malpractice actions, Estelle DePasquale alleged that surgeon Corneliu Vulpe improperly monitored her after a cholecystectomy and discharged her while she exhibited signs of infection, which led to additional hospitalizations and procedures. DePasquale initially presented to the emergency department (ED) at Staten Island University Hospital with abdominal pain, where Vulpe performed the surgery. After discovery, Vulpe moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to him.
Lower Court Decision
By order dated July 27, 2020, the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Judith N. McMahon, J.), denied Vulpe’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed, on the law, with costs, and granted Vulpe’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint as against him. The court held that Vulpe established prima facie that he did not depart from accepted standards of care, and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue because their expert affirmation was speculative and conclusory, lacking specific citations to the record and failing to address the defense expert’s opinions.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that in medical malpractice cases, a defendant can obtain summary judgment by submitting competent expert evidence negating a deviation or causation; in turn, the plaintiff must offer a non-conclusory expert opinion that directly engages the defense expert and relies on specifically cited record evidence. Conflicting expert opinions may defeat summary judgment, but only if they are adequately supported and not speculative.
A plaintiff’s expert affirmation that does not cite specific record evidence or address the defense expert’s opinions is insufficient to defeat a prima facie showing on summary judgment in a medical malpractice action.