MEDICAL MALPRACTICE- Ariana K. Politis

Once again, Senior Associate Ariana K. Politis successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of our client, a Board-Certified Diagnostic Radiologist, dismissing the plaintiff’s medical malpractice action in a case involving a claimed failure to timely diagnose and treat a quadriceps tendon rupture, as well as complications arising from the same. This case had previously resulted in a settlement on behalf of a prominent Orthopedic Group and Orthopedic Surgeon. The plaintiff suffered a fall down a flight of subway steps, and was seen in the Emergency Room with complaints of right knee pain. X-ray revealed soft tissue swelling, and she was advised to follow up with an Orthopedic Surgeon. She presented to a prominent New York Orthopedic Group and was believed to have a right quadriceps tendon rupture. MRI of the right knee was recommended to confirm the diagnosis. Our client read the MRI of what was supposed to have been the right knee, which was unremarkable. Unbeknownst to our client, the Orthopedic Group’s MRI technician had imaged the left knee as opposed to the right knee and labeled it as the right knee. After the MRI, the plaintiff continued with physical therapy, and continued to complain of pain and stiffness in the right knee. The Orthopedic Surgeon whom the plaintiff initially saw the patient then recommended a follow-up MRI three months later. This study revealed full-thickness rupture of the distal quadriceps tendon. Thereafter, the Orthopedic Group altered its electronic record to reflect the correct laterality of our client’s radiology report. Our client was then advised of the discrepancy and issued both an addendum to the original report and a new report to reflect that the initial MRI was taken of the left knee. The plaintiff eventually underwent right quadriceps tendon repair. In support of her summary judgment motion, Ariana K. Politis utilized the Expert Affirmation of a Board-Certified Diagnostic Radiologist, who opined that our client conformed at all times with the applicable standard of care required of a radiologist. In that regard, the Expert opined that the responsibility was on the MRI technician to ensure that the correct extremity was imaged, and that our client was under no obligation to ensure the study was carried out correctly. Moreover, our Expert opined that our client did not proximately cause injury to the plaintiff, as treatment of a quadriceps tendon was the same regardless of when the diagnosis was confirmed. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to utilize an Expert Affirmation, but argued that the standard of care was not met and that the actions or inactions of our client caused permanent injury to the plaintiff. The Court found that our client eliminated all triable issues of fact regarding whether she departed from the standard of care or proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries. The Court found that, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to present an expert to rebut our client’s prima facie case.