The moving defendant sought summary judgment dismissing a medical malpractice action arising from emergency treatment of a laceration caused by broken glass.
The court held that, while the plaintiff's plastic surgery expert was not practising in the same field as the emergency physician and therefore could not alone establish the standard of care in emergency medicine, the defendant's own emergency medicine expert did not eliminate a genuine issue for trial because his opinion was premised on an assumption contrary to the admitted evidence that the plaintiff reported feeling glass in the wound.
Applying the summary judgment framework under Rule 20 and Hryniak, the court found a triable issue on breach of the standard of care.
The motion was dismissed and the court remained seized.
