Schultz v. Excelsior Orthopaedics, LLP

• Decision Date: 19 June 2015
• Docket Number: 572 CA 14-01425
• Citation: 129 A.D.3d 1606,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05321,14 N.Y.S.3d 839
• Parties: Donald SCHULTZ and Katherine Schultz, Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. EXCELSIOR ORTHOPAEDICS, LLP, et al., Defendants, Michael A. Parentis, M.D., and Keith C. Stube, M.D., P.C., Doing Business as Knee Center of Western New York, Defendants–Appellants. (Appeal No. 2.).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

129 A.D.3d 1606
14 N.Y.S.3d 839
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05321

Donald SCHULTZ and Katherine Schultz, Plaintiffs–Respondents
v.
EXCELSIOR ORTHOPAEDICS, LLP, et al., Defendants
Michael A. Parentis, M.D., and Keith C. Stube, M.D., P.C., Doing Business as Knee Center of Western New York, Defendants–Appellants. (Appeal No. 2.).

572 CA 14-01425

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

June 19, 2015.

14 N.Y.S.3d 841

Connors & Vilardo, LLP, Buffalo (Lawrence J. Vilardo of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants.

Dwyer, Black & Lyle, LLP, Olean (Jeffrey A. Black of Counsel), for Plaintiffs–Respondents.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM:

129 A.D.3d 1606

Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Donald Schultz (plaintiff) as the result of defendants' alleged medical malpractice resulting in an above-the-knee leg amputation after more than a dozen surgeries and numerous hospitalizations for postsurgical infections.

129 A.D.3d 1607

Defendants Michael A. Parentis, M.D., and Keith C. Stube, M.D., P.C., doing business as Knee Center of Western New York (collectively, Dr. Parentis), appeal from a judgment awarding money damages to plaintiffs.

We reject Dr. Parentis's contention that Supreme Court erred in denying his posttrial motion seeking to set aside the verdict on the ground that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice. To establish his entitlement to that relief, Dr. Parentis was required to establish that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the verdict, i.e., “that there [was] simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [persons] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” (Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 499, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145 ). On this record, we conclude that “there is a valid line of reasoning supporting the jury's verdict that [Dr. Parentis] deviated from the applicable standard of care in [his treatment] of plaintiff ..., and that such deviation was a proximate

14 N.Y.S.3d 842

cause of plaintiff's injuries” (Winiarski v. Harris [Appeal No. 2], 78 A.D.3d 1556, 1557, 910 N.Y.S.2d 814 ). We also reject Dr. Parentis's alternative contention in support of his posttrial motion that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, i.e., that the verdict is “palpably wrong and there is no fair interpretation of the evidence to support the jury's conclusion” (Petrovski v. Fornes, 125 A.D.2d 972, 973, 510 N.Y.S.2d 366, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 608, 514 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 507 N.E.2d 322 ; see generally Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 746, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163 ). We conclude that “the trial was a prototypical battle of the experts, and the jury's acceptance of [plaintiffs'] case was a rational and fair interpretation of the evidence” (Holstein v. Community Gen. Hosp. of Greater Syracuse, 86 A.D.3d 911, 912, 926 N.Y.S.2d 785, affd. 20 N.Y.3d 892, 956 N.Y.S.2d 475, 980 N.E.2d 523 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

We agree with Dr. Parentis's contention that the court erred in sustaining plaintiffs' hearsay objections to some of Dr. Parentis's testimony concerning conversations he had with other physicians, which led to his decisions and recommendations regarding plaintiff's care. We conclude, however, that any error in that regard is harmless because the substance of the other physicians' opinions, and Dr. Parentis's reliance on those opinions, “was presented to the jury on several other...