The Causation Defense as a Matter of Law

The trial and appellate courts recognize that the causation element is vital to the plaintiff's prima facie case, and that without both factual and expert support for the causal link, there is no issue of fact for the jury. The court will rule on the issue as a matter of law, but it is incumbent upon defense counsel to identify the causation defenses and develop them to provide a basis for their determination as a matter of law.

September 16, 2022 at 11:00 AM

8 minute read

John L.A. Lyddane

To establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice, the plaintiff is required to prove three elements, including the standard of care at the point of treatment, a breach of the standard of care by the defendant, and that the breach was the proximate cause of the injury claimed. Where both sides have presented expert testimony in support of their respective positions, it is for the jury to decide which expert's testimony is more credible. Texter v. Middletown Dialysis Center, 22 A.D.3d 831 (2d Dept. 2005). Limiting the discussion to the third element, establishing proximate cause in a medical malpractice action requires plaintiff to present sufficient medical evidence from which a reasonable person might conclude that it was more probable than not that the defendant's departure was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injury. Generally, expert testimony is necessary to prove both the deviation from accepted standards of medical care and to establish proximate cause. Semel v. Guzman, 84 A.D.3d 1054 (2d Dept. 2011).