Emily L. Fernandez

Emily Fernandez (Partner-White Plains, NY) and Christopher Hofmann (Associate-White Plains, NY) obtained a defense verdict in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a hospital nurse practitioner, in a 1983 federal civil rights action. The plaintiff, an inmate, sued our client and six Newburgh, New York, police officers arising from a drug arrest and related rectal search. He alleged that our client used excessive force in violation of federal law in failing to perform the rectal exam in a reasonable manner pursuant to a search warrant obtained by the Newburgh police, resulting in civil rights violations, permanent rectal injury, pain and suffering, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  The co-defendant police officers faced multiple civil rights claims, alleging excessive force and other civil rights violations arising from the search, detention, arrest, and prosecution. The plaintiff ultimately discharged his court-appointed attorney, who had been prosecuting the claims, and prosecuted the case pro se after refusing the City’s settlement offer on behalf of the police officers.
 
At trial, our nurse practitioner client testified that she performed the exam in a reasonable manner and in conformance with the search warrant. Her testimony was supported by Wilson Elser’s emergency room physician expert, who explained to the jury the nature of the examination and testified that the physical and psychological injuries alleged by the plaintiff were inconsistent with his testimony and subsequent medical records.
 
The plaintiff testified for 2 days regarding his claims of abuse and excessive force by the police officers and the hospital staff. He also testified to claims of fraud and conspiracy between the police and medical providers. On cross-examination, Emily secured admissions that the plaintiff routinely concealed crack cocaine in his rectum as part of his drug-dealing business model and had done so more than 300 times before the examination at issue. Emily also had the plaintiff read to the jury the identical damages allegations he asserted in subsequent federal lawsuits.
 
After just 46 minutes of deliberation on an eight-page verdict sheet containing more than 17 questions, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the nurse practitioner on all claims, including punitive damages, and awarded the plaintiff only $1 in damages against the police officers.

​Emily Fernandez (Partner-White Plains, NY), Christopher Peticca (Associate-White Plains, NY), and Nicole Holland (Of Counsel-White Plains, NY) obtained dismissal of a wrongful death case on behalf of nursing home client based on COVID-19 immunity pursuant to the EDTPA. The action involved claims of medical malpractice and nursing home negligence in the care and treatment rendered to the plaintiff’s decedent allegedly resulting in COVID-19 infection and death. We drafted a motion to dismiss arguing that the medical records and policies implemented by the facility in response to the COVID-19 pandemic established that the decedent’s care was impacted by the pandemic, thus triggering immunity provided by the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA). The motion further argued that no exception to the EDTPA applied because the plaintiff failed to properly plead allegations of gross negligence, recklessness, and willfulness, as such claims were conclusory and not sufficiently distinct from the underlying negligence claims. In opposition, the plaintiff argued that we failed to conclusively establish whether the decedent’s care was in fact impacted by the pandemic and that further discovery was needed to meet that burden. The plaintiff also argued that claims of gross negligence, recklessness, and willfulness provided an exception for the EDTPA and required the motion to be denied. However, on reply, based in part on an analysis of the same case law that plaintiff submitted in opposition, we established that plaintiff’s argument was flawed and that we had indeed met the standard for EDTPA immunity in a nursing home negligence case. Specifically, we established that the plaintiff’s conclusory claims of recklessness were insufficient to provide an exception to the EDTPA and that medical records and relevant COVID-19-related policies proved that the treatment at issue was impacted by the pandemic. After oral argument on the motion in Supreme Court, Kings County, the case was dismissed in its entirety.

Emily Fernandez (Partner-White Plains, NY) and Christopher Peticca (Associate-White Plains, NY) obtained complete dismissal on a motion for summary judgment in Westchester County Supreme Court on behalf of their client hospital and two treating pediatric hospitalists. The plaintiff claimed that we prematurely discharged a jaundiced infant with a direct-to-total bilirubin ratio greater than 15% in violation of the standard of care and the hospital’s policy. Plaintiff demanded $8 million, claiming the alleged departures led to a delayed Kasai procedure, multiple interventional radiology procedures, a liver transplant, developmental delay, and other sequela. Emily and Chris established that the standard of care requires a repeat bilirubin test only when the ratio is greater than 20%, and that the repeat test should not, in any event, be done immediately owing to the pathophysiology of an infant’s liver processes. They argued that the plaintiff failed to refute the standard of care for repeat testing and that plaintiff’s expert affirmation was speculative and therefore insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Ultimately, the court found that plaintiff’s expert did not adequately refute that discharging the infant for retesting in an outpatient setting was consistent with the standard of care. The judge also held that plaintiff’s expert failed to opine that the purported failure to perform an in-patient cholestasis work-up and the purported failure to communicate directly with the infant’s pediatrician proximately changed the outcome, so the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of fact as to those claims. The codefendant pediatricians remain in the case, as their motion for summary judgment was denied.

Emily L. Fernandez (Partner-White Plains, NY), Alan B. Friedberg (Senior Counsel-White Plains, NY) and Judy Selmeci (Partner-New York, NY) obtained dismissal of a complaint, alleging permanent vision loss, orbit deformity, chronic headaches, impairment in ADLS and other sequela, in the NYS Appellate Division, Second Department, reversing the Westchester Supreme Court’s denial of our motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case that was scheduled for trial. The plaintiff, a then 32-year-old woman with four children, sought treatment at a non-party emergency room on 3/10/16, reporting she fainted and hit her face, injuring her right eye and causing facial fracture. A CT scan raised suspicion for entrapment of the rectus muscle from the fracture, but the ER doctor documented extraocular movement intact (EMOI). Plaintiff was referred to our client, a plastic surgeon at our hospital’s plastic surgery clinic. 

1. On 3/15/16, our client determined the plaintiff had EOMI and noted no surgical intervention at that time. Plaintiff was instructed to return in one week. 
2. On 3/22/16, the plaintiff reported doing better with continued but improved limitation of movement on extreme right-eye lateral gaze. Plaintiff was permitted to return to work and instructed to avoid heavy lifting, and instructed to return in one week. 
3. Neither our client nor the clinic has records for the plaintiff after 3/22/16. 
4. On 4/20/16, plaintiff reported new symptoms to her internist, who referred her to an ophthalmologist. 
5. At the 6/8/16 ophthalmology visit, plaintiff was referred to an oculoplastic surgeon, who reviewed the 3/10/16 CT and opined the right medial rectus muscle appeared caught on right medial orbital wall fracture. 
6. On 9/2/16, the plaintiff underwent surgery, which documented a defect in abduction on forced duction testing. A titanium implant and microplate screws were placed. On follow-up on 10/20/16, plaintiff continued to have diplopia and right abduction deficit. 

Our team’s summary judgment motion was denied by Judge Alexandra Murphy, Westchester County Supreme Court, based on an alleged issue of fact raised in the affidavit of plaintiff’s plastic surgery expert, based on the 3/10/16 CT, our client should have known plaintiff would suffer muscle entrapment and that our client abandoned plaintiff. The Second Department, in reversing Judge Murphy and granting summary judgment on all claims, agreed with our argument that plaintiff’s expert’s opinions were conclusory, speculative and unsupported by competent evidence tending to establish proximate causation.