Camacho v. Pintauro

210 A.D.3d 578

178 N.Y.S.3d 61

Gardenia CAMACHO, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.Robert D. PINTAURO, et al., Defendants–Appellants.

16724

Index No. 30506/18

Case No. 2022-01286

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Entered November 29, 2022

Dwyer & Taglia, Valhalla (Peter R. Taglia of counsel), for appellants.

Meagher & Meagher, P.C., White Plains (Keith J. Clarke of counsel), for respondent.

Webber, J.P., Friedman, Kennedy, Mendez, Shulman, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph E. Capella, J.), entered March 21, 2022, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, or in the alternative, to preclude plaintiff's expert testimony on causation or to hold a Frye hearing ( Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 [D.C. Cir.1923] ), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff began treating with defendant as her primary care physician in September 2013. Her medical history included asthma, COPD, obesity and diabetes. On April 15, 2017, defendant prescribed Bactrim, an antibiotic, to treat plaintiff's chronic cough, but the medication was discontinued at plaintiff's next visit, on April 19, 2017, after she developed a rash. At a follow-up visit on May 3, 2017, plaintiff's rash was resolving but she complained of new pain on the right side of her neck and between her knees and ankles so severe that she could not walk. On May 31, 2017, plaintiff's blood was drawn for a complete blood panel (CBP), revealing a heightened rheumatoid titer. Defendant diagnosed plaintiff with rheumatoid arthritis based on her complaints of bilateral knee pain and the results of her blood work. On June 2, 2017, defendant prescribed methotrexate, an anti-inflammatory, to treat her condition.

Plaintiff was to take methotrexate orally in three 2.5mg pills, for a total dose of 7.5mg once a week for 3 weeks. On June 6, 2017, plaintiff took two pills at different times on the same day and did not take any more pills after that because her foot was beginning to swell. This dosage was less than the recommended 7.5mg one week dose of the medication. On June 12, 2017, plaintiff presented to the hospital complaining of worsening right leg numbness and leg swelling for the prior three days. Plaintiff was admitted with a diagnosis of foot drop. On June 14, 2017, plaintiff was examined by a rheumatologist who assessed her with acute onset foot drop with a mononeuritis multiplex picture. The rheumatologist suspected neuro-sarcoidosis, a chronic disease of the central nervous system, as a possible etiology.

Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital on June 18, 2017. The discharge summary noted that an MRI did not reveal any causes for the foot drop, that a diagnosis of neuro-sarcoidosis was suspected, and it remained an unconfirmed diagnosis through plaintiff's last assessment in July 2020.

At the conclusion of discovery defendant moved for summary judgment. Defendant made a prima facie case of summary judgment through...