Mohamad v Csompo
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Medical malpractice arising from an obstetrical delivery, specifically whether the treating physician improperly handled delivery complications and whether disputed evidence about the use of fundal pressure precluded summary judgment.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendants summary judgment dismissing the medical malpractice cause of action.
The Appellate Division reversed the order insofar as appealed from and denied the branch of the defendants' motion seeking summary judgment on the medical malpractice claim.
The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that there was no departure from accepted medical practice or no causation because their expert relied on a disputed factual premise-that no fundal pressure was applied-and did not address conflicting evidence in the record.
Background
The plaintiff brought an action against physician Michael Csompo and New York Presbyterian Queens Hospital (NYPQ), among others, alleging medical malpractice in connection with the birth of her child. She claimed that during labor and delivery, Csompo failed to properly respond to complications, including circumstances involving alleged fundal pressure and traction, causing injury to the child.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the medical malpractice cause of action, concluding that the claim should not proceed to trial.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed that portion of the order. It held that the defendants' expert affirmation was insufficient because it failed to address conflicting evidence as to whether fundal pressure was used and instead assumed that no such pressure had been applied. Since the expert opinion depended on that disputed fact, the defendants did not eliminate triable issues of fact and were not entitled to summary judgment regardless of the adequacy of the plaintiff's opposition.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that in New York medical malpractice cases, a defendant moving for summary judgment must affirmatively address the specific malpractice allegations and cannot satisfy the prima facie burden with an expert opinion that is conclusory or based on disputed facts. Where the defense expert ignores conflicting evidence in the record, summary judgment must be denied.
A medical malpractice defendant cannot win summary judgment with an expert opinion that assumes away a key factual dispute; if conflicting evidence exists on a central issue like fundal pressure during delivery, the case must proceed.