▶ Video explainer coming soon
The appeals court reversed the dismissal. It found Ashraf's sworn statement did not address a key claim: whether using a 14-millimeter implant part, instead of a smaller size, was a departure from proper medical care. The court said a defense expert statement must directly respond to the specific claims in the lawsuit. Simply describing the treatment and saying it was fine is not enough. Because this specific issue was left unaddressed, the defendants did not meet their burden. The case was sent back, allowing the malpractice claims to move forward.
In September 2016, Anna Sanchez had total right knee replacement surgery. The surgery was performed by Dr. Wasik Ashraf. Sanchez and her husband later sued Ashraf and his employer, Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, P.C. They claimed Ashraf was negligent during the surgery. After discovery, Ashraf and his employer asked the trial court to dismiss the case through summary judgment. This means asking a judge to end a case without a trial, arguing there's nothing left to decide. The trial court agreed and dismissed the malpractice and related claims. Sanchez appealed that decision to a higher court.
The question was whether Ashraf's evidence was good enough to end the case early. In malpractice cases, a defendant must show either there was no error in care, or that any error didn't cause harm. The defendant submitted his own sworn statement. But did that statement actually address the specific claims Sanchez made, especially about the size of a knee implant part used during surgery?
This ruling reminds doctors and hospitals that summary judgment motions must fully answer every specific claim in a lawsuit. General statements about proper care are not enough if a patient points to a specific decision, like implant sizing. For patients, this case shows that detailed, specific allegations can help keep a case alive through appeal.
Talk to a licensed medical malpractice lawyer in New York.