▶ Video explainer coming soon
The appeals court reversed the dismissal. It found the doctor's expert gave only a conclusory statement on proximate cause. The expert simply said nothing the doctor did caused Lopresti's injuries, without explaining why. That was not enough proof. The court also noted the trial judge wrongly relied on a new expert opinion the doctor submitted late, in reply papers. Meanwhile, Lopresti's own expert said the doctor should have ordered more testing and follow-ups. That created a real dispute between two experts. The court said juries, not judges, must resolve conflicts between expert opinions. So the case was allowed to move forward.
Francesco Lopresti sued Dr. Faiz Alzoobaee and Alzoobaee Pediatrics. He claimed they failed to timely diagnose his testicular cancer. Lopresti said he came in with testicular pain. The doctor examined him and sent him for an ultrasound. The ultrasound came back negative. The doctor took no further action unless Lopresti had more complaints. Lopresti later developed testicular cancer. He argued the doctor should have ordered more tests and set up follow-up visits. The trial court sided with the doctor and dismissed the case before trial. Lopresti appealed that decision.
To win before trial, a doctor must show two things: they followed proper medical standards, and even if they didn't, their actions did not cause the patient's harm. This second point is called 'proximate cause.' The question here was whether the doctor's expert properly addressed proximate cause, or just made a bare claim without real support.
This case reminds doctors and hospitals that summary judgment isn't automatic. A brief, unsupported statement about causation is not enough to end a malpractice case early. It also shows that new evidence can't be introduced for the first time in reply papers. This ruling helps preserve patients' rights to have juries weigh conflicting medical opinions.
Talk to a licensed medical malpractice lawyer in New York.