EXPERT OPINIONS FAILED TO RAISE “TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT”
After PG filed a malpractice case against the defendants in Rockland County Supreme Court, the defendants made a pre-trail (summary judgment) motion for relief in their favor. And to that end, the defendants submitted an opinion from a medical expert, PG’s medical records, and deposition transcripts, which all purported to show that the defendants did not deviate from the “appropriate standard of care,” and that they had not caused PG’s injuries. Yet, the judge assigned to the case denied their application.
Upon its independent review of the record, the Appellate Division, Second Department, concluded that the motion court had made an error and reversed, primarily because the opinions offered by PG’s experts, in opposition to the defendants’ motion, were “conclusory, speculative, and unsupported by the evidence.”
Given that PG failed to competently rebut the defendants’ “prima facie” showing, the AD2 thought that dismissal of the medical malpractice claims filed against them was warranted in light of the plaintiff’s inability “to raise triable issues of fact.”
Looks like PG needed a good spin doctor here ….
# # #
DECISION