Whether the defendant physicians established their entitlement to summary judgment in the medical-malpractice action through conclusory affidavits denying negligence and causation.
Holding
No. The physicians' bare, conclusory assertions did not make the required prima facie showing that no material factual issue existed or that the malpractice claim lacked merit.
Reasoning
A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden to tender evidence sufficient to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and to eliminate all material factual issues. That burden rests on the movant before the court considers whether the opponent's papers raise a factual dispute.
If the moving party fails to make this prima facie showing, summary judgment must be denied regardless of the weakness or insufficiency of the opposing papers. Thus, the plaintiffs' submission of only their attorney's affidavit concerning the missed depositions could not cure a failure in the defendants' own proof, but neither could it justify granting an otherwise unsupported motion.
The verified pleadings identified specific alleged departures from accepted care, including failure to check Mrs. Winegrad's medical history, improper administration of anesthesia and medication, and failure to complete the surgery. They also alleged resulting injuries, and Dr. Jacobs acknowledged that the surgery was discontinued when Mrs. Winegrad developed cardiac arrhythmia.
Against those particularized allegations, each physician offered only a generalized statement that he had reviewed the records, had not departed from accepted practice, and had not proximately caused injury. The affidavits gave no factual explanation connecting the medical records, the treatment provided, or the claimed injuries to the doctors' ultimate conclusions. Such conclusory denials were insufficient to demonstrate that the cause of action had no merit.