A New York appellate court has upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by Elena Romanova against several defendants, including Clifford Glatzer and Coney Island Hospital. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court ruled on May 13, 2026, affirming that Romanova failed to comply with court orders and did not provide adequate evidence to support her claims. This ruling affects Romanova, who sought damages for alleged medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, and sets a precedent regarding the importance of adhering to court directives in medical malpractice cases.
The case, Romanova v. Glatzer (Docket No. 2023-09741), began in 2016 when Romanova filed a lawsuit against Glatzer, Coney Island Hospital, and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, along with Alex Solovey. Romanova alleged that the defendants failed to diagnose her condition in a timely manner, which she claimed resulted in damages. The dispute escalated as the defendants moved to dismiss the case, citing Romanova's failure to prosecute her claims and comply with discovery requests.
Initially, the Supreme Court of Kings County denied the defendants' motions in March 2022, ordering the parties to complete discovery. However, by November 2022, the court found that Romanova had not complied with the discovery requests, including failing to produce necessary medical records and not appearing for her deposition. The court warned that failure to provide an expert affidavit could lead to dismissal of the case.
In February 2023, Romanova submitted an affidavit from Petra Rietschel, a medical oncologist, but the defendants argued that it did not meet the court's requirements. Subsequently, the defendants renewed their motions to dismiss, which led to the August 2023 order from the Supreme Court granting their requests. Romanova appealed this decision, leading to the recent ruling from the Appellate Division.
The court ruled that Romanova's failure to comply with court orders justified the dismissal of her complaint. The judges on the panel included Mark C. Dillon, William G. Ford, Deborah A. Dowling, and Susan Quirk. They noted, "The record reflects that the plaintiff commenced this action in 2016, and that all discovery remained outstanding in 2022." The court emphasized that Romanova's conduct was willful and contumacious, meaning she intentionally disregarded the court's orders.
The ruling highlighted that the plaintiff had not provided a sufficient basis for her claims, stating, "Without a showing of causation, the plaintiff has failed to show that the action has potential merit, since proximate cause is an essential element of a claim for medical malpractice." The court found that Rietschel's affidavit was largely speculative and did not adequately demonstrate that the defendants deviated from the standard of care or caused Romanova's injuries.
The dismissal of the case underscores the importance of complying with discovery rules and court orders in legal proceedings. The court's decision reinforces the notion that plaintiffs must provide credible evidence to support their claims, particularly in medical malpractice cases where expert testimony is crucial. The ruling may affect future cases by establishing a standard for the level of compliance expected from plaintiffs in similar situations.
Moving forward, this ruling may have significant implications for Romanova and others in similar circumstances. It serves as a reminder that failure to adhere to court orders can lead to the dismissal of cases, regardless of their merits. The decision may also influence how other courts handle similar cases, particularly those involving medical malpractice claims.
As for what’s next for Romanova, it is unclear whether she will seek to appeal this decision to a higher court. The court filing did not provide information about any related cases or potential appeals. However, given the ruling's implications, Romanova may consider her options carefully before proceeding.