����ԭ��

Senior Trial Partner Rosaleen T. McCrory, Partner Samantha E. Shaw, and Associate Edmund T. Rakowski successfully obtained Summary Judgment in a case involving a plaintiff, a then 45-year-old woman, who alleged that ����ԭ��’s clients, a hospital, an OB/GYN surgeon, and an OB/GYN resident, failed to properly perform an ovarian mass removal surgery, improperly allowed morphine to be provided for anesthesia despite plaintiffs reported allergy, and failed to properly manage her anticoagulants and neurological symptoms postoperatively. Plaintiff claimed these failures resulted in an anaphylactic reaction that caused long-term neurological deficits. The plaintiff’s husband asserted a derivative cause of action. The anesthesiologist, anesthesiology group, and attending neurologist were also named as co-defendants in the case.

����ԭ�� moved for Summary Judgment on behalf of its clients,utilizing expert opinions from a neurologist and an OB/GYN surgeon. In its motion, ����ԭ�� argued that the ovarian mass removal surgery was properly indicatedand performed skillfully, within the standards of care, and with no evidence of negligence. As to the alleged contraindicated use of morphine, ����ԭ�� maintained that its clients appropriately deferred responsibility to the co-defendant anesthesiologist, for whom anesthesia was within the scope of practice. The anesthesiologist was aware of the plaintiff’s reported morphine allergy and prescribed hydromorphone, a derivative, but not morphine itself, which was areasonable and non-contraindicated alternative.

Moreover, ����ԭ�� argued that the plaintiff’s postoperative symptoms, left-lower extremity numbness and right-sided facial numbness occurring hours after surgery, were consistent not with an anaphylactic reaction but with a rare MRI-negative stroke. ����ԭ��’s experts opined that an allergic reaction to hydromorphone would have presented acutely and with different symptoms. They further opined that the plaintiff’s postoperative condition was timely diagnosed and appropriately managed. Finally, ����ԭ�� contended that the plaintiffs improperly relied on vague allegations not properly specified in the Bills of Particulars or Supplemental Bills of Particulars.

The Court granted ����ԭ��’s motion for Summary Judgment,dismissing the Complaint in its entirety as to all ����ԭ�� defendants. In the Decision, the Court decided that plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue off act, inter alia, as to whether hydromorphone should not have been administered, or establish that the plaintiff suffered an anaphylactic reaction rather than an MRI-negative stroke.

��

‍