Medical malpractice suit against emergency physician dismissed

February 16, 2024 Robert Abruzzese, Courthouse Editor

Hon. Bernard Graham.
Photo courtesy of Justice Graham

Share this:

The Appellate Division, Second Department has upheld the dismissal of a medical malpractice lawsuit against emergency physician Michael Ameres and 24/7 Emergency Care, P.C., marking a significant moment in legal proceedings surrounding medical care standards.

The original lawsuit, filed by plaintiff Maria Corujo, stemmed from treatment she received for a compound fracture of her left wrist, alleging that the medical care provided by Dr. Ameres and the associated medical facility fell below acceptable standards. The case was presided over by Justice Bernard Graham of the Kings County Supreme Court, who, in May 2019, reaffirmed an earlier decision from December 2018 granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Ameres and 24/7 Emergency Care, P.C., thereby dismissing the complaint against them.

The central issue on appeal was whether the summary judgment was appropriately granted, with the plaintiff arguing that there was a departure from good and accepted medical practice that resulted in her injuries. The defense contended that Dr. Ameres adhered to all medical standards and that any alleged departures did not contribute to the plaintiff’s injuries.

In their decision, the appellate judges highlighted the burden on defendants in medical malpractice actions to demonstrate the absence of any deviation from accepted medical practices or that the patient was not harmed as a result. The court noted that the defendants met this burden through the submission of an expert affirmation, which asserted that Dr. Ameres’ treatment did not deviate from standard medical practice and was not the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

The court further addressed the plaintiff’s counterarguments, emphasizing that the affirmations from her experts were not sufficiently probative. The plaintiff’s experts, lacking specific expertise in emergency medicine, failed to effectively challenge the defendants’ claims or establish a triable issue of fact regarding the standard of care and its breach.