▶ Video explainer coming soon
The appeals court reversed the dismissal. The hospital's expert said staff properly evaluated the patient and that even earlier diagnosis wouldn't have helped, due to timing and a brain mass condition. This met the hospital's initial burden. But Hanna's experts disagreed. One said staff failed to get a full medical history and didn't provide an interpreter. Another said a brain scan showed signs of stroke that hospital staff missed. These conflicting opinions created factual disputes. The court ruled that summary judgment isn't appropriate when medical experts disagree like this. The case was sent back for trial.
Valentina Hanna sued Staten Island University Hospital after her mother, Antonina Kuzmenko, died. She claimed hospital staff failed to timely diagnose and treat a stroke. This allegedly caused serious injuries. After both sides gathered evidence, the hospital asked the trial court to dismiss the case without a trial. This is called summary judgment. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. Hanna appealed that decision to a higher court, asking it to review whether the dismissal was proper.
In medical malpractice cases, a defendant must first show no departure from proper medical care happened, or that any departure didn't cause the injury. If they do, the plaintiff must then show real disputes of fact remain. The question here: did conflicting expert opinions about the hospital's diagnosis and treatment mean the case needed a trial, instead of dismissal?
This ruling reinforces a key rule in medical malpractice law: when expert witnesses give conflicting opinions about whether proper care was given, a judge generally cannot dismiss the case early. Instead, a jury must weigh the competing expert testimony. This case shows how important expert opinions are in deciding whether malpractice claims move forward.
Talk to a licensed medical malpractice lawyer in New York.