Campbell v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
Docket Index No. 26902/20|Appeal No. 6467|Case No. 2024-06323|
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 02445
- Docket numbers
- Index No26902/20Appeal No6467Case No2024-06323
Appeal from an order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing a medical malpractice complaint
Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department reversed Supreme Court Bronx County's grant of summary judgment for New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and reinstated Janice Campbell's medical malpractice complaint. The suit alleges surgeons lacerated the plaintiff's bladder during pelvic surgery. The appellate court found that plaintiff's expert affidavit raised a triable issue by opining surgeons deviated from the standard of care by failing to perform a retrograde bladder fill, which would have better delineated bladder margins given substantial pelvic adhesions. The court held this claim was included in the bill of particulars, so dismissal was improper.
Issues Decided
- Whether plaintiff's expert affidavit raised a triable issue of fact that the surgeons deviated from the standard of care by not performing a retrograde bladder fill during pelvic surgery
- Whether the negligent-performance-of-surgery claim based on surgical technique was encompassed by plaintiff's bill of particulars
Court's Reasoning
The court concluded that the expert's affidavit, supported by medical records showing significant pelvic adhesions, provided a plausible theory that a retrograde bladder fill would have expanded the bladder and made its margins more visible, creating a triable issue whether the surgeons' technique breached the standard of care. The appellate court also determined that the asserted technique-based claim was within the scope of the bill of particulars, so it was properly before the court and could not be disposed of on summary judgment.
Authorities Cited
- Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp.99 NY2d 542 (2002)
- Cregan v Sachs65 AD3d 101 (1st Dept 2009)
- DB v Montefiore Med. Ctr.162 AD3d 478 (1st Dept 2018)
Parties
- Plaintiff
- Janice Campbell
- Defendant
- New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation
- Attorney
- Michael J. Noonan (for appellant)
- Attorney
- Alex Fumelli (for respondent)
- Judge
- Alicia Gerez (Supreme Court, trial judge)
- Judge
- Manzanet-Daniels, J.P. (Appellate Division)
Key Dates
- Appellate decision date
- 2026-04-23
- Trial court order date
- 2024-09-10
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Prepare for trial discovery
Both parties should proceed with discovery focused on surgical technique, operative reports, and expert testimony about the standard of care and the feasibility of a retrograde bladder fill.
- 2
Retain or prepare expert witnesses
Plaintiff should ensure her expert is trial-ready to testify about the alleged departure from the standard of care; defendant should consider retaining rebuttal experts.
- 3
Consider interlocutory or final motions
Defendant may evaluate grounds for further appellate review or motion practice at the trial level, but summary judgment is no longer available to dispose of the claim.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and sent the malpractice case back for trial because there were factual disputes about whether the surgeons used proper technique.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The plaintiff, Janice Campbell, benefits because her case was reinstated; the defendant hospital will have to defend the malpractice claim at trial.
- What was the key evidence that prevented dismissal?
- An expert affidavit stating that surgeons should have performed a retrograde bladder fill to better visualize the bladder given significant pelvic adhesions, supported by the medical records.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Yes, the respondent could seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, but the decision of the Appellate Division stands unless further review is granted.
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
Campbell v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02445 Campbell v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. 2026 NY Slip Op 02445 April 23, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Janice Campbell, Plaintiff-Appellant, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Defendant-Respondent. Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026 Index No. 26902/20|Appeal No. 6467|Case No. 2024-06323| Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, González, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, JJ. The Law Office of Michael J. Noonan, P.C., Bronx (Michael J. Noonan of counsel), for appellant. Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel, New York (Alex Fumelli of counsel), for respondent. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alicia Gerez, J.), entered September 10, 2024, which granted defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the complaint reinstated. In this medical malpractice action, defendant's surgeons inadvertently lacerated plaintiff's bladder during pelvic surgery. In opposition to defendant's summary judgment motion, plaintiff submitted an expert affidavit in which the expert opined that the surgeons deviated from the standard of care by not performing a retrograde bladder fill prior to separating the uterus from the adhesions that connected it to the bladder. The expert further averred that this technique would have expanded the bladder and made its margins more visible during the dissection. This claim, supported by medical records documenting the presence of significant adhesions throughout plaintiff's pelvis, creates an issue of fact warranting a trial ( see Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp. , 99 NY2d 542, 544 [2002]; Cregan v Sachs , 65 AD3d 101, 108-109 [1st Dept 2009]). Contrary to defendant's argument, that claim was encompassed by plaintiff's bill of particulars, which alleged improper surgical technique ( see DB v Montefiore Med. Ctr. , 162 AD3d 478, 478-479 [1st Dept 2018]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 23, 2026