Case Title: Gretchen Rivera v. Paul G. Kleinman

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2011-02-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
- 1 -
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 4  
Gretchen Rivera, & c., et al.,
            Appellants,
        v.
Paul G. Kleinman, M.D., et al.,
            Respondents.
Tania M. Pagan, for appellants.
Gina B. DiFolco, for respondents Wilson and Kleinman.
William D. Buckley, for respondents Bello, Curo and St.
Barnabas Hospital.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed,
with costs.
Infant plaintiff was born in October 1995 with cerebral
palsy and spastic quadriplegia.  In March 2003, defendant doctor
operated on the infant's right and left hips, which had both
- 2 -
No. 4
- 2 -
dislocated as a consequence of her maladies.  These surgeries,
performed two weeks apart, entailed cutting and repositioning the
bones that join at the hip and fixing them with a plate (with
side screws) and a hip screw.  This hardware was to be removed
later, after the bones healed.  In August 2005, plaintiff mother,
on the infant's behalf and individually, sued the doctor and
defendant hospital for medical malpractice with respect to the
March 2003 surgeries.  She ultimately focused on a claim that the
doctor had improperly positioned the screw implanted in the
infant's left hip, causing pain and suffering.  This screw
eventually broke through the infant's skin and was taken out
during emergency surgery in December 2006.  Supreme Court granted
the doctor's motion and the hospital's cross motion seeking
summary judgment to dismiss the complaint.  The Appellate
Division affirmed (67 AD3d 482 [2nd Dept 2009]), and so do we. 
In response to defendants' prima facie showing of entitlement to
summary judgment, plaintiffs' expert did not raise an issue of
fact as to any departure from good and accepted practice in the
doctor's treatment of the infant (including the two surgeries);
and did not demonstrate any causal connection between the
doctor's alleged departures from good and accepted practice in
placing the hip screw in the infant's left hip and the injuries
claimed to have been suffered on account of the hardware's
delayed removal.
- 3 -
No. 4
- 3 -
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.  Chief Judge Lippman
and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones
concur.
Decided February 15, 2011