 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Feinberg v. Feit11/21/2005
Court, this statement was not improper speculation, but merely a recitation of precisely what the expert observed in the X-rays and precisely what that observation required. Summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions (see Shields v Baktidy, supra; Barbuto v Winthrop Univ. Hosp., 305 AD2d 623, 624). Such credibility issues can only be resolved by a jury (see Shields v Baktidy, supra; Halkias v Otolaryngology-Facial Plastic Surgery Assoc., 282 AD2d 650). The Supreme Court therefore erred in granting the motion.
PRUDENTI, P.J., H. MILLER, SPOLZINO and LUNN, JJ., concur.
|