Ryan T. Dwan recently obtained a summary judgment for a Dutchess County radiologist and radiology practice after a plaintiff alleged that they negligently failed to appreciate the significance of a diagnostic ultrasound.
In 2022, the plaintiff presented to Vassar Brothers Hospital for observation after complaints of chest, epigastric and back pain during a previously uneventful pregnancy. An ultrasound study was ordered by a co-defendant physician and interpreted by Feldman, Kleidman, Collins & Sappe LLP’s (FKC&S) client.
FKC&S’s client assigned a biophysical profile score of 6 out of 8 and reported low amniotic fluid. The plaintiff was kept overnight by her obstetrician for hydration and a second ultrasound was ordered for the following morning. The plaintiff was discharged by her obstetrician after the second ultrasound, interpreted by a different radiologist, was found to be normal in all respects.
Two days later, the plaintiff presented to Vassar Brothers Hospital for admission and induction of labor. The fetus’s heart rate was bradycardic, a stat c-section was ordered and the baby was delivered. Unfortunately, the baby died several days later.
The plaintiff alleged that FKC&S’s radiologist client negligently failed to appreciate the significance of the plaintiff’s diagnostic ultrasound and adequately inform the co-defendant physician of the significance of such findings. FKC&S retained an expert obstetrician/gynecologist and an expert radiologist who opined that FKC&S’s client’s care and evaluation of the ultrasound was correct, within the standard of care and even overly conservative. FKC&S further argued that its client’s role was limited to detecting and discerning that which was there to be seen on the ultrasound and correctly advise the co-defendant physician of such findings, which is what was done.
FKC&S filed a motion for summary judgment. The affirmations from their expert OB-GYN and radiologist argued that a radiologist has a limited duty of care, and that FKC&S’s client did not breach their limited duty to the plaintiff, as their interpretation of the diagnostic ultrasound was correct.
In responding to the various defendant motions, the plaintiff’s attorney declined to oppose FKC&S’s motion. The court thereupon granted the motion, dismissing all claims against FKC&S’s clients.