▶ Video explainer coming soon
The appeals court agreed with the trial court. It said Zappia's expert directly disputed Dr. Cai's expert on whether the procedure met the standard of care. The court called this a classic 'battle of the experts.' That means a jury, not a judge, should decide who is right. The court also rejected Dr. Cai's argument that part of the claim about the EP study itself should be thrown out. Zappia's expert had specifically stated that the abnormal heart rhythm found during the study wasn't serious enough to justify moving forward with the ablation. The case will proceed to trial.
Nora Zappia, then 27 years old, had a heart procedure called an EP study and AF ablation performed by Dr. John Jun Cai. This procedure treats abnormal heart rhythms. After the procedure, Zappia developed a condition called inappropriate sinus tachycardia. This meant her heart beat too fast. She needed a pacemaker implanted and suffered other injuries. Zappia and her family sued, claiming Dr. Cai was negligent both in recommending and in performing the procedure. Dr. Cai asked the trial court to dismiss the case before trial through a summary judgment motion. The trial court said no. Dr. Cai appealed that decision.
In medical malpractice cases, a doctor can win dismissal before trial by proving they followed proper medical standards. But if the patient's expert doctor disagrees and raises real questions, the case must go to a jury instead. The question here: did Zappia's expert raise enough doubt about Dr. Cai's care to keep this case alive for trial?
This ruling shows how New York courts handle disagreements between medical experts. When two qualified experts reach opposite conclusions about proper care, courts generally let juries decide, rather than dismissing the case early. This case reminds patients and doctors that expert testimony plays a powerful role in malpractice claims.
Talk to a licensed medical malpractice lawyer in New York.