Case Name: Patrina Kitt, as Administratrix of the Estate of Chmaar Kitt Scott, Deceased, Respondent, v. Benjamin Okonta, M.D., et al., Defendants, and Brookhaven Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-10-25
Citations: 143 A.D.3d 601
Docket Number: 
Parties: Patrina Kitt, as Administratrix of the Estate of Chmaar Kitt Scott, Deceased, Respondent, v Benjamin Okonta, M.D., et al., Defendants, and Brookhaven Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, Appellant.
Judges: Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 143
Pages: 601–602

Head Matter:
Patrina Kitt, as Administratrix of the Estate of Chmaar Kitt Scott, Deceased, Respondent, v Benjamin Okonta, M.D., et al., Defendants, and Brookhaven Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, Appellant.
[39 NYS3d 456]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered September 30, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Brookhaven Rehabilitation & Health Care Center's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Although Brookhaven made a prima facie showing that it did not depart from good and accepted medical practices (see Lopez v Gramuglia, 133 AD3d 424, 425 [1st Dept 2015]; Matos v Khan, 119 AD3d 909, 910 [2d Dept 2014]), the report of plaintiff's medical expert raised triable issues of fact as to whether there was a departure and whether any departure was a proximate cause of decedent's death. In particular, plaintiff's expert opined that decedent presented to Brookhaven with symptoms and complaints indicative of a high risk for deep vein thrombosis and a pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE), which was not ruled out by testing done at a prior medical facility, that Brookhaven should have performed a diagnostic workup for DVT/PE and provided prophylactic anticoagulation treatment, and that it unreasonably delayed in sending decedent to the hospital when he was found on the floor vomiting 11 days after admission (see Bartholomew v Itzkovitz, 119 AD3d 411, 415 [1st Dept 2014]; Jiminian v St. Barnabas Hosp., 84 AD3d 647 [1st Dept 2011]).
Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.