Opinion
712 CA 20-01013
10-01-2021
Lakeysha WICKS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Kelvin Bradley, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Amarjit Singh VIRK, M.D., Buffalo General Hospital and Kaleida Health, Defendants-Respondents.
BROWN CHIARI LLP, BUFFALO (TIMOTHY M. HUDSON OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. BROWN, GRUTTADARO & PRATO, PLLC, ROCHESTER (JOHN M. CONIGLIO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AMARJIT SINGH VIRK, M.D. ROACH, BROWN, MCCARTHY & GRUBER, P.C., BUFFALO (MEGHANN N. ROEHL OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS BUFFALO GENERAL HOSPITAL AND KALEIDA HEALTH.
BROWN CHIARI LLP, BUFFALO (TIMOTHY M. HUDSON OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
BROWN, GRUTTADARO & PRATO, PLLC, ROCHESTER (JOHN M. CONIGLIO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AMARJIT SINGH VIRK, M.D.
ROACH, BROWN, MCCARTHY & GRUBER, P.C., BUFFALO (MEGHANN N. ROEHL OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS BUFFALO GENERAL HOSPITAL AND KALEIDA HEALTH.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from an order that granted defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. We affirm.
Defendant Amarjit Singh Virk, M.D. satisfied his initial burden on his motion with respect to both deviation and causation by submitting his own expert affidavit opining, with detailed reasoning, that he "did not deviate from good and accepted medical practice ... and that [his] care and treatment of [the decedent] did not proximately cause [him] any injury" ( Thompson v. Hall , 191 A.D.3d 1265, 1267, 141 N.Y.S.3d 576 [4th Dept. 2021] ; see Webb v. Scanlon , 133 A.D.3d 1385, 1386, 20 N.Y.S.3d 830 [4th Dept. 2015] ; see also Page v. Niagara Falls Mem. Med. Ctr. , 174 A.D.3d 1318, 1319-1320, 104 N.Y.S.3d 819 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 908, 2020 WL 205900 [2020] ). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition because her expert's affidavit addressed neither the specific conclusions in Virk's affidavit nor many of the undisputed facts concerning the decedent's treatment (see Ruiz v. Reiss , 180 A.D.3d 623, 623-624, 121 N.Y.S.3d 16 [1st Dept. 2020] ; Pigut v. Leary , 64 A.D.3d 1182, 1183, 881 N.Y.S.2d 755 [4th Dept. 2009] ). Without a viable cause of action against Virk, there is no predicate for imposing vicarious liability on defendants Buffalo General Hospital and Kaleida Health (see Bagley v. Rochester Gen. Hosp. , 124 A.D.3d 1272, 1274, 1 N.Y.S.3d 635 [4th Dept. 2015] ; Kukic v. Grand , 84 A.D.3d 609, 610, 924 N.Y.S.2d 50 [1st Dept. 2011] ; Simmons v. Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr. , 74 A.D.3d 1174, 1178, 903 N.Y.S.2d 521 [2d Dept. 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 707, 2011 WL 1120108 [2011] ).