KATIRAEIFAR v. Richard Roe, M.D., et al., Defendants. (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (John J. Kelley, J.), entered on or about August 13, 2025, which denied defendant-appellant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's medical malpractice cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.  The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment through its expert, who averred that defendant's treatment of the decedent did not depart from the standard of care and did not proximately cause decedent's claimed injuries.  In opposition, plaintiff's experts' affirmations failed to address the opinions of defendant's expert and otherwise relied on conclusory allegations (see Cabrera v. Golden, 231 A.D.3d 149, 155, 216 N.Y.S.3d 153 [1st Dept. 2024];  Frye v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 70 A.D.3d 15, 24, 888 N.Y.S.2d 479 [1st Dept. 2009] ).

As for the standard of care, defendant's expert opined that defendant's use of Ambu bagging with monitoring of decedent's vital signs during transfer from the emergency department to the floor was appropriate and within the standard of care.  The transfer was documented as uncomplicated, and decedent's oxygenation only decreased after the transfer.  In opposition, plaintiff's standard of care expert did not explain why the use of an Ambu bag with monitoring of vitals was inappropriate.  While plaintiff's expert discussed testimony that use of the Ambu bag was intermittent, he did not explain that constant bagging or that use of the bag at a particular frequency was necessary.

As for proximate causation, defendant's expert averred that there was no evidence that decedent suffered a permanent anoxic injury during the transfer, opined how the post-transfer shortness of breath was caused by the development of mucus plugs and aggressive pneumonia, and addressed how decedent passed away nine months later due to his progressive ALS. Plaintiff's causation experts' opinions were conclusory as to decedent's alleged development of hypoxia and with respect to the hypoxia's impact on decedent.  Moreover, both of plaintiff's causation experts also failed to discuss defendant's expert's causation opinions.  Given those critical omissions, plaintiff did not rebut defendant's prima facie showing of entitlement to summary dismissing the medical malpractice cause of action and plaintiff's complaint.