(Photo: gpointstudio/Shutterstock.com)

A surgeon who performed gastric bypass surgery on a patient but allegedly failed to timely resume the patient's prescription medication did not commit malpractice because the surgeon did not owe the patient a duty to manage medication because intensive care unit staff and other specialists could be relied on, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.

An Appellate Division, First Department panel decided that the medical-malpractice lawsuit lodged by former patient Lee Green against the surgeon, Dr. Elliot Goodman, was properly dismissed by the lower court because “under the particular circumstances in this case, defendant, as the patient's surgeon, did not owe patient a duty to manage his medication in the ICU.”

Referring to the “emergent setting” of the intensive care unit after Green allegedly developed surgical complications, the panel wrote that Dr. Goodman “properly relied on the ICU staff and other specialists to treat and manage the patient's non-surgical issues,” including his medication.

Citing the lawsuit's allegations, the unanimous panel of Justices David Friedman, Judith Gische, Barbara Kapnick, Ellen Gesmer and Cynthia Kern explained that Dr. Goodman had been a private attending bariatric surgeon with privileges at Holy Name Hospital in New Jersey, when he performed gastric bypass surgery on Green. While in his surgeon role, he allegedly failed to resume in a timely manner Green's Lexapro prescription while Green was recovering from surgical complications in ICU.

Green had had a history of using Lexapro, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, for managing his anxiety, the panel said, again citing lawsuit allegations.

And, as a result of the failure to resume the medication, Green, while in a medically-induced coma, developed severe agitation caused by Lexapro withdrawal, the panel wrote, citing allegations.

The withdrawal symptoms allegedly led to wrist restraints being used on Green, and he eventually developed permanent bilateral wrist drop, the panel added.

In analyzing the medical-malpractice claim against Dr. Goodman—who was one of multiple defendants, but whose summary judgment dismissal motion was the subject of the First Department's decision—the panel wrote that “[a]lthough physicians owe a general duty of care to their patients, that duty may be limited to those medical functions undertaken by the physician and relied upon by the patient,” quoting Burtman v. Brown.

Then the justices wrote that “under the particular circumstances in this case,” Dr. Goodman “properly relied on the ICU staff and other specialists to treat and manage the patient's non-surgical issues.”

In closing the opinion, the panel noted that, “to reach any discussion about deviation from accepted medical practice, it is necessary first to establish the existence of a duty,” which it had ruled Dr. Goodman did not owe.

The panel's opinion affirmed Bronx Supreme Court Justice Douglas McKeon's 2018 decision granting Dr. Goodman's motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against him.

Adam Stengel of the Law Office of Adam M. Stengel represented the plaintiffs in the appeal, according to the panel's decision. Reached by phone on Thursday, he declined to comment.

Steven Mandell, of counsel at Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, represented Dr. Goodman in the appeal. He could not be reached.