Williams v. Levine Explained — Medical Malpractice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York • Decided 2025-05-14 • 2025 NY Slip Op 02962

▶ Video explainer coming soon

Case Summary

The appeals court upheld the dismissal. The defendants provided expert affirmations from board-certified specialists. These experts explained, with specific references to the medical record, why both surgeries met accepted medical standards. Williams's expert witness gave opinions that the court called conclusory and speculative, meaning they lacked specific facts or detailed reasoning. This wasn't enough to challenge the defendants' evidence. On informed consent, the court pointed to a signed consent form and deposition testimony. This evidence showed Williams had been told about the surgery, its alternatives, and foreseeable risks.

What Happened

In October 2013, Rose Williams had spinal surgery. Dr. Mitchell Levine, a neurosurgeon, performed a procedure called an extreme lateral interbody fusion. Dr. Laurence Spier, a thoracic surgeon, performed a thoracotomy, a chest surgery. Williams later sued both doctors, along with North Shore University Hospital and Northwell Health. She claimed the surgeries were done negligently. She also claimed she wasn't properly informed about the risks and alternatives before agreeing to surgery. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case before trial through summary judgment. This means asking a judge to decide the case without a trial because there's no real factual dispute. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. Williams appealed.

The Legal Question

The appeals court had to answer two questions. First, did the surgeons deviate from accepted medical standards when performing these surgeries? Second, did Williams properly consent to the surgery, meaning was she told about the risks and other treatment options beforehand? Both questions required looking at expert medical opinions and the patient's own medical records.

Timeline

Why This Matters

This case shows why detailed expert testimony matters in malpractice cases. Vague or general expert opinions usually aren't enough to win. It also shows how signed consent forms and testimony can support a defense against informed consent claims when they show specific risks and alternatives were actually discussed.

Read the full opinion →

Facing a similar situation?

Talk to a licensed medical malpractice lawyer in New York.