Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion: Papers Numbered Notice of Motion/Cross Motion/Order to Show Cause and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed 20-38 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) 40-43 Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) 44-47 DECISION/ORDER Upon the foregoing papers in this medical malpractice action, defendants New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation S/H/A The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and Kings County Hospital, Carol Johnson-Mendoza, CNM, Ammar Mahmoud, MD and Daniel Martinez, MD move in motion sequence 1 pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint against them in its entirety. Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a summons and complaint on or about November 21, 2018. Issue was joined as to HHC and all remaining defendants on December 12, 2018 and April 4, 2019, respectively. On January 22, 2019, Plaintiff served a bill of particulars on HHC and on June 6, 2019, a supplemental bill of particulars was served on the remaining defendants. On September 2, 2020, a first supplemental bill of particulars and a second supplemental bill of particulars was served on HHC and the remaining defendants. Plaintiff filed her Note of Issue on July 17, 2020. In her complaint and bill of particulars, plaintiff alleges that defendants negligently and improperly failed to diagnose and treat Plaintiff’s condition: 3rd degree perineum and sulcus lacerations; in failing to consider episiotomy; and in failing to properly supervise medical treatment rendered (Defendant’s motion sequence 1, Exhibit D: Plaintiffs’ Bill of Particulars 3). The following facts are not in dispute: On October 30, 2017, Plaintiff, then forty-one (41) weeks pregnant with her first child, presented to Kings County Hospital Center (“HHC”) due to severe abdominal pains (Defendant’s Attorney Affirmation 6 and Exhibit H: Kings County Medical Records). Pain level was noted as a nine (9) out of ten (10) and upon request, an epidural was administered for pain relief on October 31, 2017 at approximately 6:50A.M. (Id. 6-7). A healthy live male baby was born at 10:51 P.M on October 31, 2017 after a spontaneous vaginal delivery (Id. 10). The baby was delivered by defendant Carol Johnson-Mendoza, CNM (“Midwife Mendoza”) (Id.). During the delivery, Plaintiff sustained a left sulcus laceration and a perineal laceration (Id. 11). After the delivery, Midwife Mendoza checked on Plaintiff’s lacerations and sought the assistance of defendant Ammar Mahmoud, MD (“Dr. Mahmoud”), attending physician and Daniel Martinez, MD (“Dr. Martinez”), resident physician (Id. 13). The repair was noted as “complex” and Dr. Mahmoud and Dr. Martinez noted they both encountered friable tissue (Id.). After the repair, Plaintiff was transferred to a recovery room for monitoring where she began to complain of rectal pain and pressure and inability to put pressure on her glutes (Id. 14). An examination at bedside showed no notable abnormalities or obvious cause for Plaintiff’s complaints and there after Plaintiff was taken to the operating room for examination under anesthesia for suspicion of possible vaginal hematoma (Id. 15). On November 1, 2017 an examination under anesthesia was performed by Dr. Mahmoud and two additional non-party doctors (Id. 16). The procedure required opening the previous repair for full examination of anatomy and upon examination a second-degree laceration extending to the sulcus was observed as well as friable tissue (Id.). The laceration was repaired, and the Plaintiff was returned to the recovery room with vaginal packing in place (Id. 17). In recovery, Plaintiff continued to complain of rectal pain and pressure, which subsided slightly after the vaginal packing was removed, and gluteal soreness and discomfort with ambulation, which was alleviated with rest and pain medications. (Id. 18). Plaintiff was discharged home on November 3, 2017 with a discharge summary that notes Plaintiff had a third degree and bilateral periureteral lacerations (Id 19). On December 8, 2017, Plaintiff was seen in the Obstetrics Post-Partum clinic by Midwife Mendoza and complained of pain radiating to the back since the delivery. Plaintiff also complained of difficulty ambulating to a standing position and on examination, Midwife Mendoza noted there was tenderness, and was unable to introduce a speculum into the vagina or perform a digital examination (Id. 22). On December 15, 2017, Midwife Mendoza documented an earlier telephone discussion with Plaintiff during which Plaintiff reported significant pain and unbearable burning with urination (Id. 23). On December 15, 2017 and December 20, 2017, Plaintiff was seen by non-party doctors at the clinic, and it was again noted that Plaintiff incurred a third-degree laceration during delivery and antibiotics were prescribed (Id. 24). On March 12, 2018, Plaintiff presented at HHC where she was seen by Dr. Martinez and during a pelvic exam it was noted that her vaginal laceration had not healed, and she was referred to non-party Dr. Short for a urogynecology evaluation (Id. 26). On March 22, 2018, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Short and Dr. Mei, who noted that a pelvic examination revealed polyps in the lateral and posterior walls of the vagina and discussed with Plaintiff the possible revision of vaginal laceration (Id. 27). Plaintiff agreed to the revision of vaginal laceration but did not schedule the procedure. Thereafter, on May 22, 2018, Plaintiff presented to NYU Langone for a second opinion regarding surgery where it was determined that Plaintiff did not need surgical intervention (Id. 29). As a result of defendants’ alleged negligence and malpractice, plaintiff claims she sustained numerous complications, including but not limited to pain, discomfort, mental anguish, improper repair of third-degree lacerations and need for future surgeries, (Defendant’s motion sequence 1, Exhibit B: Plaintiff’s Complaint
40-41). Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment: In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendants submit the pleadings, deposition transcripts, Kings County medical records and an attorney affirmation. Defendants contend that summary judgment is warranted because the treatment rendered by the defendants was at all times in accordance with the accepted standards of practice and that the evidence submitted establishes that the Plaintiff’s perineal and sulcus lacerations were properly repaired (Defendant’s motion sequence 1, Attorney Affirmation,
