Court Opinion

ID: 9800357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:12:24.928276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:36.668083
License: Public Domain

*416Freedman, J.,
concurs in a separate memorandum as follows: Although I agree with the IAS court that plaintiffs experts’ opinions are “somewhat conclusory,” I concur with the majority that the experts have raised a sufficient question of fact as to whether it was a departure not to consider filter failure or a clot as a diagnosis and to order an immediate investigation of decedent’s complaints on October 11, 2008. I do note, however, that defendant doctor did schedule a sonogram on that date, albeit one to take place two weeks later. I also note that decedent arrived at defendant’s office unaccompanied and in no apparent severe distress. His complaints of stiffness and knee pain, while as it turned out were indicative of IVC filter failure and bleeding, were also general and could have been attributed to a myriad of causes.
I further note that decedent had not been a totally compliant patient, having refused a prostate biopsy despite PSA levels that were indicative of prostate cancer and having refused surgical repair of a hydrocele and hernia. Thus, I question the likelihood that he would have undergone major surgery in a short time.
In short, defendant appears to have been a caring and thorough physician, who missed a diagnosis. Whether that is sufficient to constitute a departure from good and accepted medical practice is a question for the trier of fact.