Javich v. Sullivan

2 Citing cases

  1. Douglas v. Galea

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 33636 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    In sum, plaintiffs neurologist's conclusory opening affirmation failed to establish a causal connection between the patient's brief, post-operative oxygen-desaturation episodes and the basilar artery stroke that she subsequently suffered. See Javich v. Sullivan, 192 A.D.3d 871, 144 N.Y.S.3d 719 (2d Dept. 2021); see also Herrera v. Sanroman, 187 A.D.3d 863, 130 N.Y.S.3d 383 (2d Dept. 2020); Wagner v. Parker, 172 A.D.3d 954, 100 N.Y.S.3d 280 (2d Dept. 2019). For the sake of completeness, the Court noted that the record as recited above and as supplemented by the relevant opinion of plaintiff s anesthesiologist on the element of departure, raised a triable issue of fact as to that element; namely, whether (among other things) the anesthesia team "prematurely remove[d] [the patient's] [i-gel] before [she] was fully awake."

  2. Gordon v. D'Souza

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 30432 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    Considering the conflicting positions taken by plaintiffs own experts, she failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the causation element of her medical malpractice and wrongful death claims as against Dr. D'Souza. See Hilt v. Carpentieri, 198 A.D.3d 625, 155 N.Y.S.3d 411 (2d Dept, 2021); Javich v. Sullivan, 192 A.D.3d 871, 144 N.Y.S.3d 719 (2d Dept., 2021); see also Attia v. Klebanov, 192 A.D.3d 650, 143 N.Y.S.3d 408 (2d Dept., 2021).