Partner Anina H. Monte, and Associate Edmund T. Rakowski, successfully secured summary judgment for MCB’s client, a neurologist, and his practice group in a case alleging the failure to properly evaluate a patient for the cause of a stroke. This occurred following her transfer to a codefendant hospital. In February2017, the patient presented to a non-party hospital, where she was diagnosed with a cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and a stroke protocol was initiated. A CT scan and angiogram revealed a possible 70% stenosis of the internal carotid artery, along with an embolic stroke. She was administered tPA for treatment and kept at the non-party hospital for further evaluation. 003
At her request, the patient was transferred to the codefendant hospital by her primary care doctors for further evaluation of the potential carotid stenosis and consideration of other treatment options. Our client, one of the consulting neurologists, examined her and provided recommendations for further work up and evaluation of the potential stroke causes. She was also seen by codefendant vascular surgeon for consideration of surgery to address the carotid artery stenosis. Upon her admission, codefendant primary care doctors ordered a series of studies, including a carotid artery Doppler, to evaluate the potential stenosis. This test did not demonstrate a high grade stenosis.
MCB’s client physician ordered further evaluation with an MRI/MRA to determine the stroke involvement and potential carotid stenosis. The MRI/MRA results, interpreted by codefendant radiologist, were consistent with the carotid artery Doppler, determining that there was not a high grade stenosis. The plaintiff argued that our client, the consulting neurologist, should have ordered a repeat CTA to be performed, based upon the reported findings of the outside hospital. However, based upon the two consistent studies, the codefendant vascular surgeon determined that surgery was not indicated.
MCB moved for summary judgment on behalf MCB’s client neurologist, arguing that the standard of care allowed for further evaluation with MRI/MRA and did not require a repeat CTA. Further, the decision as to whether or not the patient was a surgical candidate and whether surgery was indicated, was not the determination of the neurologist, but appropriately made by the codefendant vascular surgeon, who testified it was his role and obligation to make that decision. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff presented a Neurology opinion from an expert who was not licensed in the State of New York. This expert argued that the standard of care required repeat CTA, and that had the CTA been performed, it would have shown a high grade stenosis of the carotid artery, thus asserting it was a departure of the standard of care to only order an MRI/MRA. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of MCB clients, removing them from the case. The court found that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact and rebut the prima facie showing made on behalf of the MCB clients. Further that the expert's opinion was speculative and conclusory, and that the vascular surgeon noted that it was ultimately his decision whether or not surgery was indicated and when.