A New York appellate court recently reversed a lower court's decision in the case of Gittler v. Pinsky, impacting how medical malpractice claims are evaluated. The ruling affects Andrice Gittler and her husband, who allege that medical professionals failed to properly diagnose and treat Gittler's infection, leading to serious health complications.

The court's decision, issued on October 7, 2026, is significant as it reopens the door for Gittler's claims against the defendants, including Steven H. Pinsky and Rockville Anesthesia Group, LLP. This reversal highlights the complexities of medical malpractice cases and the standards that must be met for a defendant to successfully seek summary judgment.

Background

The case centers around Andrice Gittler, who presented to North Shore University Hospital (NSUH) on January 3, 2016, with pain in her right hip. After being diagnosed with a muscle strain, she was sent home. The following day, her primary care physician ordered a spinal MRI and referred her to Dr. Steven H. Pinsky, who saw her on January 8, 2016, at Rockville Anesthesia Group.

During her visit with Pinsky, Gittler was diagnosed with lumbar disc displacement and received epidural steroid injections. However, her condition worsened, leading to her admission to the hospital where she underwent a right hip aspiration and was diagnosed with a right septic hip. Gittler and her husband subsequently filed a lawsuit against NSUH, Pinsky, and Rockville, claiming that the defendants failed to properly diagnose and treat her infection, resulting in further complications.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled in favor of Gittler on some of her claims. The court reversed the lower court's decision that had granted summary judgment to Pinsky and Rockville, stating that they failed to prove they did not deviate from accepted medical standards or that any alleged deviations did not cause Gittler's injuries.

The court noted, "Pinsky and Rockville failed to establish, prima facie, that Pinsky did not deviate from good and accepted medical practice in his treatment of Gittler or that such alleged deviations were not a proximate cause of Gittler's injuries."

In contrast, the court upheld the lower court's decision regarding NSUH, affirming that the hospital had sufficiently demonstrated that any failure to diagnose did not proximately cause Gittler's injuries. The court stated that an earlier diagnosis would not have changed the outcome of her treatment.

Impact

This ruling is important as it clarifies the burden of proof in medical malpractice cases. It emphasizes that defendants must provide clear evidence that they adhered to accepted medical practices and that any alleged failures did not contribute to the patient's injuries. This decision may influence how future medical malpractice claims are handled, particularly in cases where diagnosis and treatment are contested.

The ruling also highlights the importance of expert testimony in medical malpractice cases. The court pointed out that the expert opinions provided by Pinsky and Rockville were insufficient to support their claims for summary judgment. This means that plaintiffs may have a stronger chance of success if they can effectively challenge the evidence presented by defendants.

What's Next

The case may continue to unfold as Gittler seeks to prove her claims against Pinsky and Rockville in a lower court. There is also the possibility of further appeals, particularly from the defendants who may seek to contest the appellate court's ruling. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or potential appeals.