Forgione v Rivas
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Medical malpractice arising from emergency department treatment and the alleged failure to diagnose and treat a severed nerve in the plaintiff's hand.
The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted summary judgment to Doni Marie Rivas, Rachael Goldstein, and Progressive Emergency Physicians, PLLC, dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.
The Appellate Division reversed the order granting summary judgment and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.
The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they did not depart from accepted medical practice because their expert relied on hospital records and the testimony of Goldstein and Rivas, but did not review the plaintiff's and his spouse's deposition testimony, which conflicted with that account by stating that the plaintiff reported numbness and inability to feel his hand.
Background
On July 21, 2019, Anthony Forgione went to the emergency department of Long Island Community Hospital with a laceration to his left palm. He was treated by physician assistant Rachael Goldstein under the supervision of Doni Marie Rivas, and both were employed by Progressive Emergency Physicians, PLLC. Forgione later sued for medical malpractice, alleging, among other things, that the defendants failed to diagnose and treat a severed nerve in his hand.
Lower Court Decision
After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against them. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted the motion on June 3, 2024.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed and denied the defendants' motion. It held that the defendants' expert affirmation was insufficient because it did not account for conflicting deposition testimony from the plaintiff and his spouse that the plaintiff told Goldstein his fingers were numb and that he could not feel his hand. Because the defendants did not satisfy their initial burden, summary judgment should have been denied regardless of the plaintiff's opposing papers.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that in a medical malpractice summary judgment motion, a defendant must affirmatively address all material evidence, including conflicting deposition testimony. An expert opinion that ignores evidence favorable to the plaintiff does not establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
A medical malpractice defendant cannot win summary judgment with an expert opinion that overlooks conflicting testimony about the patient's symptoms; failure to eliminate factual disputes at the outset requires denial of the motion.