Lynch v Wang
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Medical malpractice and expert qualification: whether a non-robotic-surgery specialist may testify to the standard of care for a robotic assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy.
Precluded the plaintiff’s general-surgeon expert from testifying on the robotic surgery standard of care and dismissed the complaint for failure to make a prima facie case without such testimony.
The judgment dismissing the complaint and the preclusion of the plaintiff’s expert’s standard-of-care testimony.
A medical expert need not be a specialist in the exact procedure to opine on accepted practices if possessed of sufficient skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience; the expert’s lack of robotic-specific experience affected weight, not admissibility.
Background
The plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action in April 2018 alleging that during a robotic assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy on Phillip Lynch, Sr. (the decedent), defendant John H. Wang negligently sheared the decedent’s splenic vein. At trial, the plaintiff sought to offer Richard Batista, M.D., a board certified general surgeon, who testified to knowledge of adrenal surgery and the splenic vein from his education and training, experience performing adrenal and extensive laparoscopic surgeries, and that principles of safe surgical practice regarding isolation, preservation, and protection of adjacent organs are the same in open, laparoscopic, and robotic procedures.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, Queens County (Pam Jackman Brown, J.), granted defendants’ oral application to preclude the plaintiff’s expert from testifying as to the standard of care for a robotic assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy, finding him unqualified regarding robotic treatment, and granted defendants’ oral application to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case without such expert testimony. Judgment entered September 27, 2023 dismissed the complaint.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs; defendants’ oral applications to preclude the expert and to dismiss are denied; the complaint is reinstated and the matter is remitted for a new trial. The court held that the plaintiff’s board certified general surgeon was qualified to render standard-of-care opinions; any lack of robotic-specific experience goes to weight, not admissibility.
Legal Significance
Clarifies that in New York medical malpractice cases, a medical expert need not be a specialist in the exact surgical modality (e.g., robotic) to opine on accepted practices if the expert’s training and experience show reliable knowledge of the procedure’s principles and anatomy. This lowers the threshold for admissibility of expert testimony in technology-specific surgical contexts; challenges to specialization pertain to credibility and weight for the jury, not admissibility.
A qualified general surgeon with relevant training and laparoscopic experience may testify to the standard of care for a robotic procedure; lack of robotic-specific experience affects the weight of testimony, not its admissibility. The preclusion and resulting dismissal were improper; the case is remanded for a new trial.