A New York appellate court has upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a medical malpractice lawsuit against several doctors. The case, McCord v. Dayen, centers around allegations that the defendants failed to timely diagnose and treat a patient’s multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer. The ruling, made by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on June 17, 2026, affects the plaintiff, Richard J. McCord, who is the trustee of the bankruptcy estate of the original plaintiff, Benjamini Beni.
The case began in November 2017 when Beni filed a lawsuit against doctors Nina Dayen, Vladimir Krichevsky, and Yekaterina Kleydman, claiming they did not diagnose his condition in a timely manner. Following Beni's bankruptcy filing, the trustee took over the case. In January 2023, the defendants sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, arguing that they did not deviate from accepted medical practices and that any alleged failure to diagnose did not cause Beni's injuries.
The Kings County Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on October 2, 2023. This led to McCord's appeal, where he sought to overturn the dismissal of the case. The appellate court's ruling confirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the defendants had successfully demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
The court ruled, "The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them." The panel of judges included Betsy Barros, Helen Voutsinas, Lourdes M. Ventura, and Donna-Marie E. Golia. They found that the defendants provided sufficient evidence through expert opinions that showed they did not breach the standard of care in their treatment of Beni.
The ruling emphasized the requirements for a medical malpractice claim, stating that a plaintiff must demonstrate both a deviation from accepted medical practice and that this deviation was a proximate cause of the injury. The court noted that the plaintiff's expert testimony was insufficient, as it did not adequately address the standard of care or provide specific rebuttals to the defendants' claims.
The court further explained, "General and conclusory allegations of medical malpractice, however, unsupported by competent evidence tending to establish the essential elements of medical malpractice, are insufficient to defeat a defendant physician's summary judgment motion." This highlights the importance of presenting concrete evidence in medical malpractice cases to support claims against healthcare providers.
The decision has significant implications for future medical malpractice claims in New York. It underscores the necessity for plaintiffs to provide clear and compelling expert testimony that directly addresses the standards of care and causation. This ruling may discourage frivolous claims that lack substantial evidence, thereby protecting medical professionals from unwarranted lawsuits.
This case also serves as a reminder of the rigorous standards that must be met in medical malpractice litigation. Plaintiffs must be prepared to present strong expert opinions that not only support their claims but also effectively counter the defenses raised by the medical professionals involved.
Looking ahead, it remains unclear whether the plaintiff will pursue further legal action. The appellate court's ruling is typically final unless there are grounds for appeal to a higher court. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential next steps that McCord might take. However, the ruling does set a clear precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future, particularly regarding the burden of proof required in medical malpractice claims.