▶ Video explainer coming soon
The trial court initially dismissed the malpractice and patient-rights claims. The appeals court reversed that decision. It found the facility's medical expert was a cardiac critical care doctor, not someone shown to have training in geriatric or nursing home care. The expert also did not address specific claims that staff left the patient alone on the floor and failed to cooperate with EMS. Because of these gaps, the court ruled the facility had not proven it met the required standard of care. The case was allowed to move forward.
Carol Deitch, age 80, was admitted to a rehabilitation facility. She had dementia and had recently broken her hip. About a week later, staff found her on the floor of her room. She had suffered a head injury called a subdural hematoma. Emergency medical workers arrived and reportedly found her alone, unresponsive, and bleeding. She had no identification band. EMS said staff were uncooperative and did not share key medical information. She died after being taken to a hospital. Her death certificate listed the head injury as a contributing cause. Her son, as executor, sued the facility for malpractice and for violating nursing home patient protection laws.
The facility asked the court to dismiss the case before trial, arguing there was no wrongdoing. To win that kind of request, called summary judgment, a defendant must show either no departure from proper medical care, or that any departure did not cause harm. The question was whether the facility's evidence actually met that legal standard.
This ruling shows that expert opinions in nursing home cases must come from someone qualified in the right specialty. It also shows that experts must directly answer the specific complaints raised in a lawsuit. General or unrelated expert opinions are not enough to end a case early.
Talk to a licensed medical malpractice lawyer in New York.