Senior Partner Michael Sonkin and Partner Conrad Chayes, Jr.鈥檚 motion for summary judgment on behalf of our client, an Internist, was granted by the Hon. Justice Spodek in the Supreme Court, Kings County, resulting in the dismissal of all malpractice and wrongful death claims as against her. 聽This is an action brought on the behalf of a then-34 year old morbidly obese Decedent, wherein it is alleged that defendants negligently failed to diagnose and treat lower extremity thrombophlebitis during a period of treatment at the codefendant medical practice from 2013 to 2015. 聽The patient deceased in December 2015 secondary to pulmonary thromboembolism, and in addition to wrongful death claims, it was claimed that the Decedent provided financial and parental support to her then-14 year old daughter. 聽Plaintiff claimed that our Internist failed to recognize the signs and risk factors for deep vein thrombosis in the Decedent, who presented in August 2015 with shortness of breath upon exertion and a history of presenting to multiple emergency departments where she received relief from administration of bronchodilators and reported negative chest x-rays. 聽Our Internist immediately referred the Decedent for a PFT test and pulmonology workup with Codefendant. 聽The patient ultimately presented to the pulmonologist three months later, at which time she relayed a one-week history of shortness of breath.
We argued, through multiple affirmations on behalf of our Board Certified Internal Medicine physician, that our client properly appreciated the Decedent鈥檚 history and clinical presentation, which in the absence of any leg swelling, tenderness, discoloration or other symptoms or risk factors for DVT/PE, was suggestive of a chronic or asthmatic process which did not warrant a cardiac referral. 聽Further, we differentiated the August 2015 complaints of shortness of breath from the 鈥渙ne week鈥 history of shortness of breath complained of in December 2015, as the onset of a new condition. 聽This was supported further by the Death Certificate, which characterized Decedent鈥檚 December 2015 pulmonary embolism as a 鈥渞ecent鈥 acute event. 聽We further highlighted the speculative nature of the Plaintiff鈥檚 expert鈥檚 purported opinions, as the expert opined our client should have referred the Decedent for a cardiac workup in August 2015 on the basis of the pulmonology consultation, which was not resulted until November 2015. 聽Additionally, we argued the Plaintiff鈥檚 Expert Affirmation must be disregarded as without basis in fact, as the expert opined these cardiac tests would have 鈥渓ikely鈥 indicated the need for further testing, which 鈥渕ore likely than not鈥 would have revealed DVT/PE. 聽Justice Spodek agreed, holding that the Plaintiff鈥檚 Expert鈥檚 opinions constituted conclusions based on speculation, misstatements of the facts, were without basis in medicine, and were insufficient to overcome the opinions set forth in our Expert Affirmation and Reply Expert Affirmation.
Moreover, on the basis of the facts set forth in our Expert Affirmations, the Court also granted summary judgment to the Codefendant Nurse Practitioner, whose counsel moved using our own expert opinions in support. 聽The case will proceed against the Codefendant medical practice and pulmonologist.