I.M. v Hospital for Special Surgery

Holding The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, granting the defendants’ motions and dismissing the complaint because the plaintiff failed to present admissible evidence of a triable issue of fact. The court found that the plaintiff’s expert lacked the requisite specialty to opine on the specific care provided, and the plaintiff’s theories were either not properly pled or unsupported by the record.

The court’s words

Plaintiff's expert, an internist with a specialty in geriatric care, failed to profess that he had the requisite knowledge to opine either on the application of a post-orthopedic surgery spica cast or the standards of care for a visiting nurse

2026 NY Slip Op 06525, at the official text

Plaintiff's claims that VNS should have modified the infant's care plan are fundamentally flawed since its role as a visiting nurse service was to carry out the instructions of the infant's team at HHS, not to make independent medical decisions

2026 NY Slip Op 06525, at the official text

There is no evidence apart from the infant's expert's conclusory opinion, that the pressure ulcer occurred because HSS negligently applied the infant's cast

2026 NY Slip Op 06525, at the official text