Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 N.Y.2d 320 (1986)
A defendant physician in a medical malpractice case is entitled to summary judgment upon demonstrating the absence of any material issues of fact regarding their negligence, shifting the burden to the plaintiff to produce evidentiary proof demonstrating a triable issue of fact.
Summary
Plaintiff sued the hospital and multiple doctors, including Dr. Stark, for medical malpractice. Dr. Stark, a radiologist, had twice diagnosed the plaintiff with a cecal neoplasm based on barium enema X-rays. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent in failing to discover and/or treat the lesions. Dr. Stark moved for summary judgment, arguing his diagnosis was correct and that, as a radiologist, he wasn’t responsible for treatment. The Court of Appeals held that Dr. Stark met his burden of demonstrating the absence of material fact issues and the plaintiff failed to adequately rebut that showing with expert testimony, warranting summary judgment for Dr. Stark.
Facts
Maria Alvarez was admitted to Prospect Hospital multiple times for abdominal pain.
Dr. Stark, the chief of radiology, interpreted radiological studies during these visits.
In 1978 and 1979, Dr. Stark identified “cecal neoplasm” in barium enema X-rays and reported it to the attending physician.
Plaintiff was discharged after the first visit with a diagnosis of gastroenteritis.
Later, plaintiff underwent surgery to remove a malignant growth in her colon.
Procedural History
Plaintiff sued the hospital and nine physicians, including Dr. Stark, alleging negligence.
Dr. Stark moved for summary judgment, which was denied by the Supreme Court.
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial.
The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether Dr. Stark, as the moving party, made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, thereby shifting the burden to the plaintiff to demonstrate a triable issue of fact.
Whether the plaintiff adequately rebutted Dr. Stark’s showing with evidentiary proof establishing a material issue of fact regarding his alleged negligence.
Holding
Yes, because Dr. Stark’s submissions, including his deposition testimony and the hospital records, demonstrated the absence of material triable issues of fact as to the malpractice claims asserted against him.
No, because the plaintiff’s sole submission, an affidavit from her attorney, was insufficient to rebut Dr. Stark’s showing, as it lacked expert medical opinion and attempted to introduce a new theory of liability not asserted in the original complaint or bill of particulars.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized the standards for summary judgment, stating that the moving party must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Once this is done, the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce evidentiary proof establishing material issues of fact requiring trial.
In medical malpractice cases, the plaintiff must submit evidentiary facts rebutting the defendant physician’s showing of non-negligence. General, conclusory allegations are insufficient.
The court found Dr. Stark’s submissions, including his deposition testimony supported by hospital records, sufficient to demonstrate that he properly and timely diagnosed the plaintiff’s condition and did not depart from accepted standards of care.
The court distinguished this case from Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center, where the doctors’ affidavits contained only conclusory assertions of acting within the standard of care, without specific factual references. Here, Dr. Stark refuted the allegations with specific factual references.
The court also cited Fileccia v. Massapequa Gen. Hosp., where summary judgment was granted to a radiologist who only interpreted X-rays. Similarly, Dr. Stark’s role was limited to interpreting radiological studies, and the plaintiff failed to provide expert medical opinion to support a new theory of liability (failure to consult with attending physicians) not previously asserted.
The court stated, “Just as the burden of a party opposing a motion for summary judgment is not met merely by repeating or incorporating by reference the allegations contained in the pleadings or bills of particulars * * * neither is that burden met by the unsubstantiated assertions or speculations of plaintiff’s counsel that a defendant may have breached a possible duty of care.”