Burns v. Sobieraj
Docket 191 CA 24-01898
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02537
- Docket
- 191 CA 24-01898
Appeal from a judgment entered October 16, 2024, in Steuben County Supreme Court dismissing a medical malpractice complaint after a jury verdict for defendants.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department reversed a jury verdict in favor of defendants in a medical malpractice case and granted a new trial. Plaintiffs alleged the radiologist defendant failed to identify a potentially cancerous abnormality on chest X-rays. The court held the trial judge erroneously gave an "error in judgment" jury instruction, which is appropriate only when a doctor chooses among several medically acceptable alternatives. Because the evidence showed only an alleged failure to meet the standard of care (a failure to diagnose), giving that charge risked confusing the jury and was not harmless, requiring reversal and reinstatement of the complaint.
Issues Decided
- Whether the trial court erred by giving an error-in-judgment jury charge in a medical malpractice case when the evidence did not show the physician chose among medically acceptable alternatives.
- Whether giving that charge was harmless error or required reversal and a new trial.
Court's Reasoning
The court explained that an error-in-judgment charge is proper only where a physician considered and chose among multiple medically acceptable treatment options. Here the plaintiffs' theory was that the defendant failed to exercise due care in assessing and diagnosing the plaintiff's condition, not that he chose among acceptable alternatives. Because the charge could have led the jury to excuse liability simply because the physician exercised his judgment, the error was not harmless and required a new trial.
Authorities Cited
- Anderson v House of Good Samaritan Hosp.44 AD3d 135 (4th Dept 2007)
- Mancuso v Kaleida Health172 AD3d 1931 (4th Dept 2019), affd 34 NY3d 1020 (2019)
- Vanderpool v Adirondack Neurosurgical Specialists, P.C.45 AD3d 1477 (4th Dept 2007)
Parties
- Plaintiff
- Eric C. Burns
- Plaintiff
- Heather S. Burns
- Defendant
- Voytek W. Sobieraj, M.D.
- Defendant
- Associated Radiologists of the Finger Lakes, P.C.
- Judge
- Jason L. Cook
Key Dates
- Appellate decision date
- 2026-04-24
- Trial court judgment entered
- 2024-10-16
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Prepare for retrial
Plaintiffs and defendants should prepare for a new trial; update expert reports and trial strategy to address the court's guidance on permissible jury instructions.
- 2
File motions in trial court
Defendants or plaintiffs may file pretrial motions regarding admissibility of expert testimony and proposed jury instructions to avoid the error that required reversal.
- 3
Consider appellate options
Any party dissatisfied with the Appellate Division's decision should consult counsel about seeking leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the appeals court decide?
- The court reversed the trial verdict for the defendants, reinstated the complaint, and ordered a new trial because the judge gave an inappropriate jury instruction.
- Why was the jury instruction wrong?
- The instruction told jurors to treat the doctor's action as an acceptable exercise of judgment, but the case presented only an alleged failure to meet the standard of care, not a choice among acceptable treatments.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The plaintiffs (the Burns) benefit because their case is reinstated; defendants will face a new trial on the malpractice claim.
- What happens next?
- The trial court must conduct a new trial consistent with the Appellate Division's ruling, without giving the improper error-in-judgment instruction.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Yes; the losing party could seek permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, subject to that court's discretionary review rules.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Burns v Sobieraj - 2026 NY Slip Op 02537 Burns v Sobieraj 2026 NY Slip Op 02537 April 24, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department ERIC C. BURNS AND HEATHER S. BURNS, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v VOYTEK W. SOBIERAJ, M.D., AND ASSOCIATED RADIOLOGISTS OF THE FINGER LAKES, P.C., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on April 24, 2026 191 CA 24-01898 Present: Curran, J.P., Montour, Smith, Ogden, And Delconte, JJ. PORTER LAW GROUP, SYRACUSE (MICHAEL S. PORTER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS. O'CONNOR, O'CONNOR, BRESEE & FIRST, P.C., BINGHAMTON (RACHEL E. MILLER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Steuben County (Jason L. Cook, J.), entered October 16, 2024, in a medical malpractice action. The judgment dismissed the complaint upon a jury verdict. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the complaint is reinstated against defendants, and a new trial is granted. Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Eric C. Burns (plaintiff) as the result of the alleged malpractice of defendant Voytek W. Sobieraj, M.D. At trial, plaintiffs' expert testified that Sobieraj deviated from medically acceptable treatment standards when reviewing a series of X-rays taken of plaintiff's lungs by failing to identify an abnormality as potentially cancerous. The jury returned a verdict finding that Sobieraj was not negligent. We agree with plaintiffs that reversal is required because Supreme Court improperly gave an error in judgment charge ( see PJI 2:150). "[A]n error [in] judgment charge is appropriate in a case where a doctor is confronted with several alternatives and, in determining appropriate treatment to be rendered, exercises [their] judgment by following one course of action in lieu of another" ( Anderson v House of Good Samaritan Hosp ., 44 AD3d 135, 139 [4th Dept 2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Spadaccini v Dolan , 63 AD2d 110, 120 [1st Dept 1978]). However, such a charge should be given "only in a narrow category of medical malpractice cases in which there is evidence that [the] defendant physician considered and chose among several medically acceptable treatment alternatives" ( Mancuso v Kaleida Health , 172 AD3d 1931, 1935 [4th Dept 2019], affd 34 NY3d 1020 [2019] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Nestorowich v Ricotta , 97 NY2d 393, 399 [2002]; Martin v Lattimore Road Surgicenter , Inc. , 281 AD2d 866, 866 [4th Dept 2001]). An error in judgment charge is not warranted where, as here, there was no evidence introduced at trial that the defendant physician "made a choice between or among medically acceptable alternatives" ( Anderson , 44 AD3d and 140), and the "plaintiffs' [sole] theory of [the] defendant's alleged malpractice ar[ose] from [the] defendant's alleged lack of due care in assessing [the] plaintiff's condition," inasmuch as "the [sole] issue before the jury was [then] whether [the] defendant's failure to diagnose [the] plaintiff's [condition] constituted a deviation from medically accepted standards of care" ( Vanderpool v Adirondack Neurosurgical Specialists , P.C. , 45 AD3d 1477, 1478 [4th Dept 2007]; see Lacqua v Silich , 141 AD3d 690, 692 [2d Dept 2016]). Inasmuch as the error in judgment charge here "create[d] a risk that [the] jury w[ould] find that, because [Sobieraj] exercised his . . . best judgment, there can be no liability despite a failure to adhere to generally accepted standards of care," we conclude that the court's error in giving the charge cannot be deemed harmless ( Anderson , 44 AD3d at 141; see Rospierski v Harr , 59 AD3d 1048, 1049-1050 [4th Dept 2009]; Vanderpool , 45 AD3d at 1478), and plaintiffs are thus entitled to a new trial. Entered: April 24, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn