Further Clarification of Summary Judgment Standard
In their Medical Malpractice column, Thomas A. Moore and Matthew Gaier, discuss the "judicial drift" that led to a rule that a moving defendant could establish entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence only that there was no departure from accepted practice, ignoring causation, and that in order to defeat the motion, the plaintiff would have to prove both departures and causation—a rule that has not yet been universally overturned.
November 30, 2015 at 04:52 PM
13 minute read
In our column of June 2011, we discussed what was then the Second Department's recent decision in Stukas v. Streiter, 83 A.D.3d 18 (2d Dept. 2011), which clarified the law on summary judgment and held that a plaintiff is required to establish the existence of an issue of fact as to causation in opposition to summary judgment only if the moving defendant has satisfied its burden on that issue by submitting proof that it did not cause any injury.1 Up to that point, a long line of Second Department decisions recited the contrary rule that once a medical malpractice defendant demonstrates that there was no departure from accepted practice or that any departure was not a proximate cause of injury, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that there was a departure and that it caused injury.
The effect of the rule was that a moving defendant could establish entitlement to summary judgment by submitting evidence only that there was no departure, while ignoring causation altogether, and that in order to defeat the motion, the plaintiff would have to prove both departures and causation.
In Stukas, the Second Department traced its prior decisions and found that the rule had developed inadvertently over time, and that it conflicted with several basic principles applicable to summary judgment motions. It therefore effectively (although not expressly) overruled that line of cases, and held that a plaintiff opposing a summary judgment motion must only establish causation if the moving defendant's submission were sufficient to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on that issue.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'If You Are Aware of Areas for Improvement and You Can Play a Role in That, Speak Up,' Says Jennifer Mellott of Freshfields
- 3'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 4What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 5Burns & Levinson to Wind Down After 64 Years in Boston
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250