New York Personal Injury Attorneys Blog

The New York Appellate Division, Second Department, has, once again, ruled that the scope of a Frye hearing regarding a plaintiff’s theory of causation in a medical malpractice action is limited only to whether or not the expert’s opinion is based on generally accepted scientific principles, as opposed to the expert’s own unsupported beliefs. Specifically, plaintiff is not required to produce medical literature that demonstrates causation under parallel circumstances, but rather, an expert’s testimony must be allowed where a synthesis of various studies or cases permits the expert to reach such a conclusion.

In Lugo v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.,decided on September 13, 2011, the infant plaintiff indisputably suffered spastic diplegia type cerebral palsy, resulting in developmental delays and confirmed by abnormal findings on an MRI of his brain. He had been born with excellent Apgar scores, but experienced tremors when he was 40 minutes old. He was ultimately diagnosed in the NICU with a blood glucose level of 3 mg/dl (40 mg/dl being normal). After being given an infusion of glucose, his glucose level rose to a normal amount approximately one hour and twenty minutes after his birth.

The theory of plaintiff’s case was that the hospital’s failure to timely diagnose and treat the infant’s hypoglycemia caused his brain injury. The hospital’s attorneys successfully moved the Motion Court for a Frye hearing, supported by affidavits from its experts stating their opinion that a transient episode could not cause the type of brain injury seen on the infant’s MRIs. Following the hearing, the Motion Court precluded plaintiff’s experts from testifying with regard to their theory of causation, and dismissed the case, finding that plaintiff failed to provide “authoritative” medical literature that supported the theory that a “short episode” of hypoglycemia could have caused the infant’s brain injury.

In a rather unusual case, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department held that there are limits to how far a defendant can go in examining a medical malpractice plaintiff during an Independent Medical Examination in New York. In the case D’Adamo v Saint Dominic’s Home decided on September 13, 2011, the Second Department was confronted with a defendant whose examining doctor wanted to perform a host of invasive examinations upon a non-communicative plaintiff who suffered from both mental and physical disabilities. The 19-year old plaintiff was a resident of the defendant’s group home as he suffered from mental retardation, cerebral palsy and autism. Through his guardian, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s malpractice caused him to sustain severe damage to his colon resulting in loss of a length of his colon and a permanent colostomy bag.

It is well-settled law in New York that a defendant is entitled to a medical examination of a plaintiff who places his physical condition in issue. It is also well-settled that the medical examination cannot be invasive in nature. In this case, the examining doctor chosen by the defendant initially sought to perform a rectal exam on the plaintiff with a rigid sigmoidoscope. Counsel for the plaintiff rightfully objected on the basis that the examination sought was clearly invasive and posed risks beyond that of a simple medical examination given the physical and mental condition of the plaintiff. The defendant and the examining doctor suggested alternative examinations involving a digital rectal examination, a pediatric sigmoidoscope and possible sedation. The plaintiff’s counsel again objected on the same basis. The Appellate Division, Second Department agreed that these examinations were too invasive and denied the defendant’s request.