J.N. v Christine R. Vyskocil
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Medical malpractice arising from obstetrical care during the delivery of the infant plaintiff, specifically whether the physician failed to anticipate and respond to delivery complications and whether that conduct caused the infant's injuries.
The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted summary judgment to Christine R. Vyskocil and Westmed Medical Group and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
The Appellate Division reversed the order insofar as appealed from and denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Although the defendants made a prima facie showing that there was no departure from accepted medical practice and no causation, the plaintiffs' expert physician submitted an affirmation opining that Vyskocil departed from the accepted standard of care and proximately caused certain injuries, creating triable issues of fact that precluded summary judgment.
Background
The infant plaintiff, through his mother, and the mother individually sued for, among other things, medical malpractice in connection with the infant's birth. They alleged that during delivery Christine R. Vyskocil, who was associated with Westmed Medical Group, failed to properly anticipate and respond to complications, causing injury to the infant plaintiff.
Lower Court Decision
The trial court held that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them, accepting their showing that Vyskocil did not depart from good and accepted medical practice and did not proximately cause the alleged injuries.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the plaintiffs' opposing expert affirmation was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on both departure and causation. Because conflicting expert medical opinions were presented, summary judgment was inappropriate, and the defendants' motion should have been denied.
Legal Significance
The decision reiterates a settled rule in New York medical malpractice litigation: a defendant moving for summary judgment must establish either no departure from accepted practice or no causation, but even when that prima facie burden is met, the motion must be denied if the plaintiff's expert raises a genuine factual dispute. Conflicting expert opinions on standard of care and causation are for the factfinder, not for resolution on summary judgment.
In a medical malpractice birth-injury case, a well-supported plaintiff expert affirmation identifying departures from accepted care and linking them to injury is enough to defeat summary judgment, even where the defense submits expert proof to the contrary.