The New York Appellate Division recently ruled in favor of Mount Sinai Doctors Long Island in a medical malpractice case involving a patient who underwent cataract surgery. The court's decision affects the medical community and patients seeking compensation for alleged malpractice. It highlights the challenges plaintiffs face in proving their claims in court.
The case, titled Russo v. Mount Sinai Doctors Long Island, was decided on August 19, 2026, under docket number 2024-12306. The plaintiff, Rosemarie Russo, alleged that the medical professionals at Mount Sinai failed to meet the accepted standards of care during her cataract surgeries, leading to her injuries.
Rosemarie Russo was the patient in question. In June 2018, she underwent cataract removal surgery performed by Dr. Elizabeth Small, an employee of Mount Sinai Doctors Long Island. During this first surgery, an intraocular lens (IOL) was placed in her left eye. Following the surgery, Russo reported a decline in her vision, prompting Dr. Small to perform a second surgery in July 2018 to replace the IOL with one of a different power. During this second procedure, a tear was discovered in Russo's posterior capsule. After the second surgery, Russo experienced pain and was later diagnosed with Uveitis-Glaucoma-Hyphema (UGH) syndrome.
In response to her injuries, Russo filed a lawsuit against Mount Sinai Doctors Long Island, claiming medical malpractice. She argued that Dr. Small failed to calculate the correct power for the IOL during the first surgery and did not properly manage the IOL exchange during the second surgery. The case was brought to the Supreme Court of New York, where the defendants sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint.
The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on October 3, 2024, leading to a judgment entered on November 7, 2024, that dismissed Russo's complaint. Russo subsequently appealed the decision to the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division ruled that the defendants had met their burden of proof in demonstrating that there was no departure from accepted medical standards. The court stated, "In moving for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action alleging medical malpractice, a defendant must establish, prima facie, that there was no departure or deviation from the accepted standard of care or that such departure or deviation was not a proximate cause of any injury to the plaintiff." The judges involved in this ruling were Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, Linda Christopher, Lourdes M. Ventura, and Donna-Marie E. Golia.
The court found that the expert testimony provided by the defendants established that Dr. Small acted within the accepted standards of medical practice during both surgeries. The court noted that the defendants' expert opined that the posterior capsular tear and UGH syndrome were known risks associated with cataract surgery and could occur without any negligence.
Furthermore, the court pointed out that Russo's own expert testimony was deemed insufficient. The court stated that the opinions presented were "conclusory, speculative, and based largely on hindsight reasoning." This lack of substantial evidence from the plaintiff ultimately led to the dismissal of her claims.
The ruling has significant implications for future medical malpractice cases in New York. It underscores the importance of having strong, credible expert testimony when alleging malpractice. The decision may deter similar lawsuits if plaintiffs are unable to provide compelling evidence to support their claims.
Patients who undergo medical procedures should be aware of the inherent risks and the challenges they may face if they seek legal recourse for alleged malpractice. This ruling serves as a reminder that not all adverse outcomes in medical treatment are due to negligence, and proving otherwise can be a complex legal challenge.
Looking ahead, it remains unclear if Russo will pursue further legal action. The court's decision can potentially be appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, but details on any such plans were not available in the court filing. As of now, there are no related cases pending that could influence this ruling.