Christopher W. Hofmann (Associate-White Plains, NY) obtained a decision from the Bronx County Supreme Court granting complete summary judgment in favor of a large, certified home health agency client based in New York City. The action, sounding in negligence and medical malpractice, concerned skilled nursing visits provided to the plaintiff’s decedent, an insulin-dependent diabetic, at home following her admission to a non-party hospital. The plaintiff alleged that the agency failed to monitor the decedent’s blood glucose levels properly and failed to correctly administer insulin and/or monitor insulin dosages, resulting in a worsening of her diabetic condition. The decedent subsequently developed altered mental status, hypothermia, and hypoxia secondary to severe hypoglycemia, resulting in her death.

Chris moved for summary judgment, arguing that responsibility for administering insulin and monitoring the decedent’s blood glucose levels rested exclusively with the decedent’s caregiver. The motion was supported by a nursing expert who opined that the agency’s initial and ongoing nursing assessments properly determined that the caregiver demonstrated appropriate diabetes-specific knowledge and self-management skills, including recognition and treatment of hypoglycemia, insulin administration, and blood glucose monitoring. In further support of the motion, an expert geriatrician affirmed that the sole proximate cause of the decedent’s severe hypoglycemia and related symptoms was due to a medication error, namely, the administration of excessive insulin by the decedent’s caregiver. Plaintiff opposed the motion by arguing that the agency should not have allowed the decedent’s caregiver – an untrained “layperson” – to administer insulin and monitor the decedent’s blood glucose levels.

In granting summary judgment, the court found that the opinion of plaintiff’s expert was “pure speculation,” and agreed with Chris’s arguments that the opinion of plaintiff’s expert was conclusory, without evidentiary support, and outright contradicted by the medical records and testimony which established that the decedent’s caregiver had an long-standing history and demonstrated competence with respect to performing these tasks. The Court further agreed with Chris’s arguments that the sole departure raised in opposition was not previously pleaded, that the plaintiff’s expert physician was unqualified to opine regarding the standard of care applicable to skilled nursing, and that the plaintiff failed to explain how any alleged error by the decedent’s caregiver was attributable to our agency client.