The plaintiff claimed that this office’s client failed to perform a timely pulmonary evaluation and treatment of respiratory distress, for an elderly patient following laparoscopic appendectomy and resection of a perforated bowel. The Court initially denied the motion for summary judgment. This office moved to reargue, and on reargument, the Court held that summary judgment was warranted, as the plaintiff’s expert’s opinion was conclusory, speculative, did not address specific assertions by the defendant’s experts, and was based on facts which were contradicted by the record.
We offer virtual conferences and touchless payments and agreements.
Formerly
Menu
