Coleman v Robin
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Medical malpractice involving emergency treatment for an anaphylactic reaction and placement of a central venous catheter.
The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted summary judgment to the defendant physicians and dismissed the medical malpractice cause of action against them.
The Appellate Division reversed the portion of the order granting summary judgment dismissing the malpractice claim against Hubert G. Robin and Shahram Ahari.
Although the defendants made a prima facie showing through expert proof that they did not depart from accepted standards and did not cause the plaintiff's injuries, the plaintiff's expert raised triable issues of fact by opining that the defendants failed to use ultrasound guidance during guidewire advancement and failed to confirm correct guidewire placement in the jugular vein, and that those departures caused the plaintiff's injuries.
Background
The plaintiff alleged that, while being treated for an anaphylactic reaction to a bee or wasp sting, the defendant physicians negligently misplaced a central venous catheter into her carotid artery. She claimed that this alleged departure from accepted medical practice caused subsequent complications and injuries.
Lower Court Decision
The trial court held that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the medical malpractice cause of action insofar as asserted against them.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed insofar as appealed from and denied the branch of the defendants' motion seeking summary judgment on the medical malpractice claim. The court held that the plaintiff's expert affidavit was sufficient to raise triable issues of fact on both departure from the standard of care and proximate cause.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that in a medical malpractice action, summary judgment is improper where both sides submit competent but conflicting expert opinions on departure and causation. A plaintiff can defeat summary judgment by offering a nonconclusory expert opinion specifically identifying the alleged departures and linking them to the claimed injuries.
Conflicting expert evidence about whether physicians properly performed central line placement and whether any error caused injury creates fact issues for trial, not resolution on summary judgment.