����ԭ��

Senior Trial Partner John Barbera, Partner Michael Manning, and Senior Associate Kristen Griffin successfully obtained Summary Judgment and dismissal in Westchester County Supreme Court in a case involving medical malpractice claims and claims brought pursuant to the COVID-19 immunity statute and successfully opposed plaintiff’s motion to reargue and renew.

This matter involved the plaintiff-decedent, who presented to a codefendant Hospital’s Emergency Department (ED) with right lower extremity ischemia and underwent multiple vascular procedures, including angiograms, angioplasty with stent placement, and thrombolysis. ����ԭ��’s client physician treated the decedent in the ICU during the admission. Plaintiff alleged that ����ԭ��’s client physician’s malpractice caused re-thrombosis, arterial occlusion, limb ischemia, hypotensive events, and the eventual need for a right above-the-knee amputation.

In support of its motion for Summary Judgment and COVID-19 immunity under the EDTPA, ����ԭ�� argued that the care rendered adhered to good and accepted medical practice and did not proximately cause the decedent’s injuries. ����ԭ�� supported the motion with expert affirmations from a physician board certified in critical care medicine, pulmonary medicine, and internal medicine, as well as affirmations from ����ԭ��’s client physician and the codefendant hospital’s Vice President of Medical Affairs and Chief Medical Officer.

The Court granted ����ԭ��’s motion and dismissed the action in its entirety, finding that defendants established entitlement to immunity under the EDTPA by demonstrating that the care was rendered in good faith pursuant to COVID-19 emergency directives and that the decedent’s treatment was impacted by the hospital’s response to the pandemic.

Plaintiff subsequently moved to reargue and renew, relying on Holder v. Jacob and additional Second Department decisions. ����ԭ�� opposed, arguing that plaintiff merely repeated arguments previously raised and failed to identify any matter of fact or law overlooked by the Court. The Court denied plaintiff’s motion, holding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate any basis for reargument or renewal and further determined that the cited appellate decisions did not alter its conclusion that ����ԭ�� established immunity under the EDTPA.

��

‍