JUDY PAMELA BLACKMAN v. Ishola Adeyemo, M.D., Defendant. (2026)

Recitation, as required by CPLR § 2219 (a), of the papers considered in the review:

NYSCEF #s: 30-42, 43-50, 51-53

Defendant Ishola Adeyemo, M.D. ("Dr. Adeyemo") moves for an Order, pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting summary judgment in his favor and dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint (Seq. No. 1). Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Plaintiff commenced this action on behalf of the estate of Judy Pamela Blackman ("Decedent") on May 10, 2023, asserting claims of medical malpractice and wrongful death. The claims arise from an alleged failure to inform Decedent of her pathology results showing endometrial cancer.

Decedent was 57 years old at the time of the events at issue. She was admitted to SUNY Downstate Hospital from March 7, 2022 through March 9, 2022 with symptoms that included daily vaginal bleeding and abnormally low hemoglobin and hematocrit.

On March 9, 2022, Decedent underwent an endometrial biopsy performed by a resident under supervision from Dr. Adeyemo. She was discharged the same day with a follow-up appointment at the hospital's gynecology clinic on March 28, but she did not return.

On March 11, 2022, Decedent's pathology results revealed serous carcinoma of the endometrium. According to Dr. Adeyemo's testimony and the medical chart, he made multiple attempts to contact Decedent by phone and certified mail between March 14, 2022 and April 12, 2022. However, she never received these notifications due to an erroneous telephone number and incomplete address on file. She ultimately was diagnosed with stage 4B endometrial cancer in January 2023. She passed away two years later on February 5, 2025.

"Medical malpractice actions require proof that the defendant physician deviated or departed from the accepted community standards of practice, and that such deviation was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. On a motion for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action alleging medical malpractice, the defendant bears the initial burden of establishing that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice or that any alleged departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff's injuries." (Graham-Guerrier v Tercel, 245 AD3d 898, 899-900 [2d Dept 2026] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].)

"To meet that burden, a defendant must submit in admissible form factual proof, generally consisting of affidavits, deposition testimony and medical records, to rebut the claim of malpractice" (Miller-Albert v EmblemHealth, 231 AD3d 1147, 1148 [2d Dept 2024]). "If the defendant makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact as to those elements on which the defendant met its prima facie burden of proof" (Graham-Guerrier at 900, quoting Stewart v N. Shore Univ. Hosp. at Syosset, 204 AD3d 858, 860 [2d Dept 2022]). "Generally, summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions" (Garcia v Hollander, 241 AD3d 651, 653 [2d Dept 2025] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].) However, "expert opinions that are conclusory, speculative, or unsupported by the record are insufficient to raise triable issues of fact" (Barnaman v Bishop Hucles Episcopal Nursing Home, 213 AD3d 896, 898-899 [2d Dept 2023]).

In support of this motion, Dr. Adeyemo submits an expert affirmation from Marc Engelbert, M.D. ("Dr. Engelbert"), a licensed physician board certified in obstetrics and gynecology.

Dr. Engelbert opines that Dr. Adeyemo "took reasonable and appropriate steps" to notify Decedent of the test results showing uterine cancer, using the address and telephone number available to him. Based on notes in the record, Dr. Adeyemo attempted to call Decedent on March 14, March 15, March 17, March 30, and April 6, and he left a voicemail on four of those occasions. Dr. Adeyemo also directed a resident to call her and leave a message on March 15. Dr. Adeyemo further noted an attempt to contact her "significant other" from Downstate records and her employer, but did not successfully reach them.

Additionally, Dr. Adeyemo noted in the medical chart that he spoke with another physician, Dr. Liverpool, for help "tracking down the patient" and that he spoke with the risk management department and public relations department on March 30. Finally, he directed hospital staff to send letters to her address by certified mail, return receipt requested, but all three letters were returned to sender. He made no further attempts after the April 12, 2022 letter was returned on April 24.

Dr. Engelbert opines that all these attempts constituted reasonable and "diligent" efforts to contact Decedent, and he was not required to do more. He opines that it was not Dr. Adeyemo's responsibility, nor required by the standard of care, to independently confirm her address and telephone number, hand deliver the letter, or send a "personal messenger" to her home. The expert bases this on testimony from Dr. Adeyemo that he "didn't think [he] had the resources, authority to do that."

Dr. Engelbert also offers opinions that Dr. Adeyemo's initial diagnostic workup and treatment on March 9, 2022 was proper, including the performance of the endometrial biopsy. The Court notes that Plaintiff does not assert any claims regarding his medical treatment on that date, and they do not oppose that part of the motion.

The Court notes that the movant argues in their attorney affirmation that Dr. Adeyemo's "legal duty was limited" and did not extend beyond using Decedent's listed telephone number and address to contact her. "Although physicians owe a general duty of care to their patients, that duty may be limited to those medical functions undertaken by the physician and relied on by the patient. The existence and scope of a physician's duty of care is a question of law to be determined by the court." (Abruzzi v Maller, 221 AD3d 753, 755 [2d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].)

Here, it is clear from the testimony and contemporaneous records that Dr. Adeyemo undertook a duty to inform Decedent of her pathology report and urgent need for cancer treatment. Plaintiff argues in their opposition that "Dr. Adeyemo was responsible for notifying [Decedent] of her uterine cancer biopsy results, as evidenced by his records of making attempts to call her by phone and leave voicemails." The Court agrees. As the attending physician who oversaw the biopsy, he made multiple attempts to contact her personally, directed residents and staff to call and send certified mailings, and contacted other personnel in the hospital including the risk management and public relations departments. The Court finds that as a matter of law, the scope of the functions undertaken by Dr. Adeyemo and relied on by the patient included making attempts to inform her of the test results.

However, the factual issue addressed by the parties' experts is not the existence of this duty to the patient, but whether he acted as a reasonably prudent doctor and complied with the standard of care in exercising that duty (see Donnelly v Parikh, 150 AD3d 820 [2d Dept 2017]).

Based on the submissions, Dr. Adeyemo's expert has established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the basis that he acted in accordance with applicable medical standards. The expert opines that his attempts to follow up with the patient about her malignant pathology results were reasonable, diligent, and no further steps were required to comply with good and accepted medical standards. The burden therefore shifts to Plaintiff to raise an issue of fact.

In opposition, Plaintiff submits an expert affirmation from a licensed physician [name of expert redacted], board certified in obstetrics and gynecology. An unredacted, signed copy of the affirmation was presented to the Court for in camera inspection.

Plaintiff's expert opines that Dr. Adeyemo departed from good and accepted practice in contacting Decedent about her "life threatening condition" of "endometrial cancer requiring timely treatment." Specifically, Plaintiff's expert opines that Dr. Adeyemo should have reached out to the SUNY Downstate billing department." Dr. Adeyemo contacted the risk management and public relations department on or about March 30, 2022, but did not contact the billing department, although the expert opines that they were "the most reliable source from which to obtain a patient's complete address." The expert notes that Decedent received a mailing from the billing department on July 19, 2022 with her correct address and apartment number, as evidence that this information was available in that department's records.

The expert further opines that after the certified mailings were returned to sender with the line "insufficient address," Dr. Adeyemo should have recognized there was no apartment number and made efforts to personally investigate or direct other hospital staff to obtain it, either through an internet search or going to the building which they emphasize was merely "three blocks" from the hospital. The expert counters Dr. Adeyemo's testimony that he "didn't think [he] had the resources, authority" to do this, opining that he did have such authority as the physician coordinating the attempts to contact her, and "he departed from the standards of good and accepted practice by failing to do so."

Plaintiff's expert also opines that after his repeated inability to reach Decedent by phone, Dr. Adeyemo should have searched the internet with her name and partial address through Google or other public websites to obtain her correct phone number.

Based on evaluation of the submissions, the Court finds the conflicting opinions of the experts are sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether Dr. Adeyemo deviated from the standard of care, in light of the seriousness of her diagnosis, by not making further specific efforts to obtain a correct telephone number and/or address.

In reply, the movant submits an affidavit from an employee of the SUNY Downstate billing department, who states that Decedent's address was not updated in their records until July 19, 2022, "at which time both Eagle system (registration and billing system) and Altera electronic health cared) were updated concurrently." Therefore, the movant argues that the apartment number would not have been available to Dr. Adeyemo even if he had contacted them in March-April 2022.

The Court finds these exhibits merely demonstrate that there are issues of fact and credibility regarding Dr. Adeyemo's alleged failure to obtain her address and Decedent's delay in diagnosis, which must be determined by a jury. It is unclear from the record what triggered the address update in July 2022 or whether the information could have been obtained sooner. Even if the court accepts the movant's argument that the billing department system was not updated until July 2022, Decedent was not made aware of her cancer diagnosis until January 2023, an additional six months later.

The movant also argues in reply that the Court should not consider Plaintiff's exhibits purporting to show that her phone number and apartment number were available through an internet search. Regardless of the relevance of the internet search screenshots, however, Plaintiff's expert has raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the standard of care required Dr. Adeyemo to make the further attempts outlined above.

On the issue of proximate causation, the movant's expert Dr. Engelbert opines briefly that no alleged departures from the standard of care led to Decedent's injuries or death. In opposition, Plaintiff's expert opines in further detail as to the progression of Decedent's cancer and her claimed injuries and death. The expert states that serous carcinoma of the endometrium, when caught at stage I or II and confined to the uterus, has a 75% five-year survival rate. In contrast, stage IV cancer of the endometrium has a 30% five-year survival rate. The expert opines that Decedent's cancer most likely had not spread beyond her uterus when she was treated in March 2022, but it had metastasized to her liver and lungs in January 2023 and was diagnosed at stage IV-B. Thus, the expert opines the alleged failure to properly contact Decedent was a proximate cause of her worsened prognosis and outcome.

The movant argues in reply that Plaintiff's expert is not qualified to render opinions on proximate causation, as they have not laid a proper foundation of experience or background in gynecological oncology. However, the movant did not offer their own expert from an oncology background in their initial moving papers. It is well established that when a movant does not address proximate causation and "demonstrates only that he or she did not depart from the relevant standard of care, there is no requirement that the plaintiff address the element of proximate cause in addition to the element of departure" (Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d 18, 24-25 [2d Dept 2011]). Accordingly, the Court finds the movant did not establish their prima facie burden on this issue. There remain triable issues of fact as to whether Dr. Adeyemo's alleged departures proximately caused or contributed to Decedent's worsened condition and death, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers.

Lastly, the movant argues that Decedent "had a responsibility to obtain the results," and her delay in diagnosis was attributable to her own failure to contact the hospital or appear for her follow-up appointment on March 28, 2022. However, "the mere fact that other persons share some responsibility for plaintiff's harm does not absolve [a] defendant from liability because there may be more than one proximate cause of an injury" (see Mazella v Beals, 27 NY3d 694 [2016]). Decedent's contributory negligence, if any, is an issue of fact for the jury to determine.

For these reasons, Dr. Adeyemo's motion for summary judgment is denied in its entirety.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED that Dr. Adeyemo's motion (Seq. No. 1) is denied.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

ENTER.

Hon. Consuelo Mallafre Melendez J.S.C.

Consuelo Mallafre Melendez, J.