Rodriguez v Weber
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Medical malpractice and lack of informed consent arising from treatment to remove a gallstone from the plaintiff's common bile duct.
The Supreme Court, Westchester County, denied the motion of Charles Noyer and Digestive Disease and Nutrition Center of Westchester, LLP, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
The Appellate Division reversed that portion of the order and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the Noyer defendants.
Although the Noyer defendants made a prima facie showing that there was no departure from accepted care or no causal link to the plaintiff's injuries, the plaintiff's expert affirmation was speculative, conclusory, based on facts unsupported by the record, and failed to show causation.
Background
In January 2016, surgeon Philip Weber and gastroenterologist Charles Noyer unsuccessfully attempted to remove a gallstone from the plaintiff's common bile duct. In April 2016, Weber and Noyer successfully removed the gallstone. The plaintiff later sued in October 2018 for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, alleging that departures from accepted standards of care caused his injuries. Charles Noyer and Digestive Disease and Nutrition Center of Westchester, LLP, moved for summary judgment dismissing the claims against them.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Westchester County, denied the Noyer defendants' motion for summary judgment, allowing the claims against them to proceed.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed insofar as appealed from, holding that the Noyer defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. The court found that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response to the defendants' prima facie showing.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that, in a medical malpractice summary judgment motion, once a defendant submits evidence showing either no departure from accepted practice or no proximate causation, the plaintiff must respond with competent expert proof tied to the record. Speculative or conclusory expert affirmations that do not establish a factual basis or causal connection are insufficient to defeat summary judgment.
A plaintiff opposing summary judgment in a medical malpractice case must submit a well-supported expert opinion grounded in the record and explaining causation; unsupported assertions will not preserve claims for trial.