Diaz v. New York Downtown Hosp., 99 N.Y.2d 542 (2002)
A medical expert’s conclusory assertion of negligence, based solely on conflicting test results without addressing the defendant’s evidence of non-negligence, is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact and defeat a motion for summary judgment.
Summary
In this medical negligence case, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the defendant laboratory. The defendant presented evidence demonstrating the blood test was properly performed and a negative result was possible even with a later positive result. The plaintiff’s expert provided a conclusory affidavit stating the defendant’s negative result was erroneous because of the subsequent positive result. The Court of Appeals held that the expert’s conclusory statement, without more, failed to raise a triable issue of fact because it did not address the defendant’s evidence that different results could occur absent negligence.
Facts
The decedent had a blood test performed by the defendant laboratory. The test result was negative. Two months later, another laboratory performed a blood test on the decedent, and the result was positive. The plaintiff, presumably the decedent’s representative, brought a negligence action against the defendant laboratory, alleging the initial negative test result was erroneous and caused harm. The defendant laboratory moved for summary judgment.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court initially ruled on the motion. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision and granted summary judgment to the defendant. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the affidavit of the plaintiff’s medical expert was sufficient to raise a material issue of fact to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, where the defendant presented a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment.
Holding
No, because the expert’s conclusory assertion that the defendant’s negative result was erroneous, based solely on the subsequent positive result, raised no issue of fact given the defendant’s evidence that different results were possible absent negligence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on the principle that a party opposing summary judgment must present evidentiary facts sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendant laboratory demonstrated that the blood test was properly performed, it did not interpret the results, and the negative result could have been correct despite the later positive result. This established a prima facie case for summary judgment, shifting the burden to the plaintiff to produce sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue.
The court found the plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit insufficient because it merely asserted that the defendant’s negative result was erroneous because of the later positive result. The court noted that the expert did not address or rebut the defendant’s evidence that different test results could occur without any negligence on the part of the laboratory. The court emphasized that an expert’s conclusory assertions, without supporting factual basis, are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Quoting "even if plaintiffs proof were fully credited by a fact finder, defendant has offered proof to the effect that there could be different results without any negligence, and plaintiff has offered nothing further to indicate defendant’s negligence in this case." Therefore, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the defendant’s negligence. The court cited Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325 and Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853.