Anthony Markman, et al. v. New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System, Inc. d/b/a New York Presbyterian Hospital-Columbia University Medical Center, et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Medical malpractice concerning pressure ulcer (sacral wound) management, duty of care among providers, and summary judgment based on expert affidavits.
Supreme Court, Bronx County granted summary judgment to all defendants and dismissed the complaint.
Summary judgment for New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System, Inc., Hiro Takayama, M.D., Elizabeth Wist, P.A., and Metropolitan Jewish Homecare, Inc. was reversed; dismissal as to Kung-Ming Jan, M.D. was affirmed.
Plaintiffs' nursing and internal medicine hospitalist experts raised triable issues of fact on departures and causation for the hospital, surgeon, PA, and homecare provider; the cardiologist (Dr. Jan) owed no independent duty to manage the pressure ulcer where others implemented and monitored wound care and his recommendation was not adopted.
Background
Plaintiff developed a sacral pressure ulcer while receiving medical care involving multiple providers, including a hospital, a cardiothoracic surgeon and PA, a homecare agency, and a cardiologist. Plaintiff testified he discussed the ulcer and sought a referral from the cardiologist, which was not made, but he obtained wound treatment elsewhere. Other providers implemented and monitored the wound-care plan. Plaintiffs alleged negligent identification and treatment of the pressure ulcer and causation of injuries.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Bronx County (Justice Alicia Gerez) granted defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint as to all defendants.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified: it affirmed dismissal for cardiologist Kung-Ming Jan, M.D., finding he had no independent duty to treat or manage the sacral wound because he was not a wound-care specialist, his recommendation was not implemented, and other providers were responsible for wound care. As to New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System, Inc., Hiro Takayama, M.D., Elizabeth Wist, P.A., and Metropolitan Jewish Homecare, Inc., it denied summary judgment, holding plaintiffs' nursing and internal medicine hospitalist expert affidavits adequately outlined familiarity with pressure-ulcer care, identified departures from accepted standards, and opined on causation, thereby creating triable issues of fact. The court rejected challenges to the experts' qualifications, noting that lack of specialization affects weight, not admissibility, and an expert need not be a specialist if possessing requisite knowledge (citing Limmer v Rosenfeld, 92 AD3d 609 [1st Dept 2012]; Rodriguez v Isabella Geriatric Ctr. Inc., 227 AD3d 485 [1st Dept 2024]).
Legal Significance
Clarifies that a physician outside the relevant specialty (here, a cardiologist) may owe no independent duty regarding a condition managed by other providers when the physician's recommendations are not implemented and others control care. Reinforces that in medical malpractice summary judgment, non-identical-specialty experts (e.g., nursing expert and internal medicine hospitalist) can establish triable issues by demonstrating familiarity with standards of care and opining on departures and causation; disputes over expert qualifications typically go to weight for the factfinder, not admissibility.
In medical malpractice cases, expert affidavits from qualified but non-specialist professionals can defeat summary judgment by raising triable issues on standard of care and causation, while providers outside the area of care with no implemented treatment role may be dismissed for lack of duty.