Bronx Hospital Can't Be Held Liable for Patient's Suicide, Appeals Panel Rules
Citing the treating physicians' deposition testimony and extensive medical records, the First Department panel wrote that in response to hospital questioning, the patient consistently denied having suicidal thoughts or ideation while stating that his anxiety stemmed in part from an uncomfortable living situation.
November 28, 2018 at 05:38 PM
3 minute read
A Bronx hospital can't be held liable for causing the death of a patient with anxiety disorder who committed suicide soon after being discharged, because the patient had consistently denied to doctors having suicidal thoughts or ideas, a state appeals court has ruled.
An Appellate Division, First Department panel also wrote in its decision Tuesday—which affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the medical malpractice complaint—that the “plaintiff's expert's opinion that, given the circumstances surrounding decedent's presence in [Lincoln Medical Center's] emergency department for psychiatric evaluation, the decision to discharge him led to his death, is speculative,” citing Park v. Kovachevich.
The patient, unnamed in the decision, had undergone a procedure at Lincoln Hospital Center's gastrointestinal clinic, when he was found crying in the hospital and saying he was depressed, the panel wrote. He was transferred to the hospital's emergency department for psychiatric evaluation, where he was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, prescribed an anti-anxiety medication, scheduled for a follow-up appointment and discharged later the same day, the panel added.
In writing that Lincoln Medical Center, part of defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., and related defendants had established prima facie that they hadn't departed “from good and accepted medical practice” when treating and releasing the patient, the panel pointed to both treating physicians' testimony and a defense psychiatric expert's testimony.
Citing the treating physicians' deposition testimony and extensive medical records, the unanimous panel wrote that, in response to hospital questioning, the patient consistently denied having suicidal thoughts or ideation while stating that his anxiety stemmed in part from an uncomfortable living situation.
The defense psychiatric expert had opined that the defendants had complied with accepted professional standards of psychiatric care and made an appropriate discharge, because the patient had denied multiple times that he had any suicidal or homicidal ideation, didn't present a danger to himself or others, didn't present with a sudden psychiatric condition, demonstrated good insight and impulse control, and displayed sincere concern for his own well-being, the panel wrote.
At the same time, the panel, comprised of Justices Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, Peter Tom, Troy Webber and Jeffrey Oing, noted that plaintiff Altagracia Morillo—who had an unspecified connection to the decedent—“failed to raise an issue of fact, notwithstanding plaintiff's submission of the affidavit of the decedent's girlfriend, who accompanied him to LHC's emergency department and averred that defendants never inquired as to suicidal ideation.”
The panel's decision affirmed the 2015 ruling of Bronx Supreme Court Justice Douglas McKeon to grant Lincoln Hospital Center's and related defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Nicholas Paolucci, a spokesman at the city Law Department—which represented defendants, as New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. is a municipal healthcare system—said in email that the First Department “was legally correct in not holding HHC liable for this tragic incident.”
Aleksey Feygin, an attorney with Mark M. Basichas & Associates in Manhattan, represented Morillo, and could not be reached for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Orders Rudy Giuliani to Court Amid Allegations He's Hiding Assets Under Receivership
'A Regressive Institution': SDNY Judge Rakoff Delivers Pointed Remarks on SCOTUS in Recent Appearance
2 minute readSimpson Thacher Partner Moves to Vinson & Elkins as Co-Head of Strategic M&A
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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