����ԭ��

Partners John M. Bugliosi and Adam T. Brown, assisted by Associate Emily N. Galvez, successfully obtained Summary Judgment, in Ulster County, on behalf of ����ԭ��’s client medical group in a matter involving an infant Plaintiff, brought by his parents. Following prenatal care by ����ԭ��’s client medical group, the infant was delivered via emergent C-section at 41 weeks 4/7 days at a hospital on July 4th, 2019. The infant plaintiff’s mother had been admitted for labor induction, but fetal distress was detected in the early morning hours of July 4^th. The infant was diagnosed with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy and sustained profound developmental delays.

The critical issue for liability was that electronic fetal monitoring was discontinued overnight with fetal distress detected on July 4th when the monitor was applied. The OB/GYN physician - an employee of ����ԭ��’s client medical group but not individually represented by ����ԭ�� - maintained the position that continuous monitoring overnight had been intended. A co-defendant nurse, employed by the co-defendant hospital rather than the medical group, testified at deposition that the OB/GYN verbally instructed her to discontinue the monitoring. ����ԭ�� secured a stipulation limiting the claims against the medical group solely to vicarious liability arising from the OB/GYN’s alleged conduct.

The OB/GYN separately moved for Summary Judgment, and ����ԭ�� adopted the arguments of the OB/GYN’s obstetrics/gynecology expert in support of the medical group’s own motion. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, with their expert opining that the standard of care required the OB/GYN to remain in the hospital overnight. In reply, ����ԭ�� argued that plaintiffs were improperly introducing a new theory not previously pled and that it was entirely speculative that the outcome would have differed merely because the OB/GYN slept and remained overnight in the hospital. The co-defendants, who also opposed the Summary Judgment motions, arguing that the nurse’s testimony created a triable issue of fact.

The Court found that both defendants – ����ԭ��’s client medical group, and the OB/GYN - established prima facie entitlement to Summary Judgment as a matter of law and that plaintiffs had failed to overcome that showing. The Court further held that the co-defendant nurse lacked standing to oppose the motions. Accordingly, all claims against the OB/GYN physician were dismissed, and the vicarious liability claims against ����ԭ��’s client medical group, premised on the OB/GYN’s alleged malpractice, were likewise dismissed pursuant to the prior stipulation.

‍