A New York appellate court has reversed a lower court's decision that granted summary judgment to a medical group and a physician in a medical malpractice case. The ruling affects the plaintiffs, including an infant who allegedly suffered injuries during birth, and allows their case against Dr. Christine Vyskocil and Westmed Medical Group to proceed. This decision is significant as it highlights the importance of expert testimony in medical malpractice claims.
The case, known as J.N. v. Vyskocil, was filed in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York under docket number 2022-02707. The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from Krentsel Guzman Herbert, LLP, alleged that Dr. Vyskocil failed to properly manage complications during the delivery of the infant plaintiff, leading to serious injuries. The defendants, including Westmed Medical Group, were represented by Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach LLP.
The dispute arose when the plaintiffs accused Dr. Vyskocil and Westmed of medical malpractice related to the delivery of the infant. They claimed that the defendants did not anticipate or appropriately respond to complications that arose during the birth process. Initially, the Supreme Court of Westchester County ruled in favor of the defendants, granting their motion for summary judgment, which effectively dismissed the complaint against them.
However, the plaintiffs appealed the decision, arguing that there was sufficient evidence to show that Dr. Vyskocil had indeed deviated from the accepted standard of medical care. They presented an expert physician's affirmation stating that Vyskocil's actions did not align with what is considered acceptable practice in the medical community and that this deviation caused harm to the infant.
On May 20, 2026, the appellate court issued its ruling, stating, "The Supreme Court should have denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them." The court emphasized that the plaintiffs had raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether Dr. Vyskocil had departed from the standard of care and whether this departure caused the alleged injuries.
The ruling was made by a panel of judges, including Angela G. Iannacci, Linda Christopher, Barry E. Warhit, and Carl J. Landicino. Their decision underscores the principle that in medical malpractice cases, if there are conflicting expert opinions, summary judgment is generally not appropriate.
This ruling has important implications for the plaintiffs and for similar cases in the future. It allows the plaintiffs to continue their pursuit of justice in the courts, potentially leading to a trial where the evidence can be fully examined. The court's decision reinforces the necessity of expert testimony in establishing whether a medical professional acted within the bounds of accepted medical practice.
Going forward, the case will return to the lower court for further proceedings. The plaintiffs will have the opportunity to present their case, and the defendants will need to defend against the allegations of malpractice. This ruling may also encourage other plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases to seek expert opinions to support their claims, knowing that courts are willing to consider such evidence seriously.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the defendants plan to appeal this decision. However, the outcome of this case could set a precedent for how courts handle medical malpractice claims involving conflicting expert opinions in the future.