| Breland v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02777 [49 AD3d 789] |
| March 25, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Shenel Clark Breland, Appellant, v Jamaica HospitalMedical Center, Respondent, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan, LLP, Valhalla, N.Y. (Jacqueline Mandell of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, etc., theplaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court,Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.), entered September 22, 2006, as, upon an order of the samecourt dated August 22, 2006, granting the motion of the defendant Jamaica Hospital MedicalCenter for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, is in favorof that defendant and against her dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against thatdefendant.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, thecomplaint is reinstated against the defendant Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, the motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant is denied,and the order dated August 22, 2006, is modified accordingly.
On October 21, 2002 James Breland (hereinafter the decedent) was taken by ambulance tothe emergency room of the defendant Jamaica Hospital Medical Center (hereinafter theHospital), complaining of a severe headache, dizziness, and blurred vision. The decedent, whosuffered a brain hemorrhage, died two days later.
The plaintiff, the administratrix of the decedent's estate, commenced the instant actionagainst the Hospital and another defendant. The plaintiff asserted causes of action to recover[*2]damages for medical malpractice and wrongful deathalleging, inter alia, that the Hospital's staff delayed the decedent's treatment in certain respects,and that such delays constituted departures from good and accepted medical practice. TheHospital subsequently moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as assertedagainst it. The Supreme Court granted that motion and entered judgment in favor of the Hospital.We reverse.
On its motion, the Hospital established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The Hospital provided anaffidavit of an expert neurosurgeon, who, upon reviewing the decedent's medical records and thedeposition testimony, opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the delays intreatment did not constitute departures from good and accepted medical practice, and moreover,were not proximate causes of the decedent's death (see Rebozo v Wilen, 41 AD3d 457, 458 [2007]; Thompson v Orner, 36 AD3d 791,792 [2007]; Williams v Sahay, 12AD3d 366, 368 [2004]).
In opposing the motion, the plaintiff provided an affidavit from an expert neurologist, who,upon reviewing the decedent's medical records and the deposition testimony, opined to areasonable degree of medical certainty that the delays in treatment constituted departures fromgood and accepted medical practice, and were proximate causes of the decedent's death. Contraryto the conclusion of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff's expert's knowledge of the relevantstandards of care was established (see Erbstein v Savasatit, 274 AD2d 445, 445-446[2000]). Furthermore, the affidavit of the plaintiff's expert was sufficient to raise triable issues offact as to whether the Hospital's staff departed from good and accepted medical practice in itstreatment of the decedent, and whether such departure was a proximate cause of the decedent'sdeath (see Vera v Soohoo, 41 AD3d586, 587 [2007]; Rebozo v Wilen, 41 AD3d at 458; Thompson v Orner, 36AD3d at 792; Dellacona v Dorf, 5AD3d 625 [2004]; Domaradzki v Glen Cove Ob/Gyn Assoc., 242 AD2d 282 [1997];Sisko v New York Hosp., 231 AD2d 420, 422 [1996]). Miller, J.P., Covello, Eng andChambers, JJ., concur.