Yang v. United States of America

Background

This Federal Tort Claims Act case concerns the labor and delivery of S.Y., the infant son of plaintiffs Jingyuan Yang and Yan Li. S.Y. was delivered by emergency cesarean section on December 6, 2019, by Dr. Sandy Lau Bui, D.O., an employee of Charles B. Wang Community Health Center, Inc. The opinion states that Dr. Bui is treated as a Government employee for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The plaintiffs allege that Dr. Bui and other clinic employees were negligent and committed medical malpractice during labor and delivery and afterward, causing S.Y. severe and permanent injuries, including a phrenic nerve injury and a brachial plexus injury. The case is a non-jury trial. The opinion states that claims previously brought against New York Presbyterian were dismissed, leaving the claims against the Government.

Expert Testimony

The plaintiffs intend to present testimony from Dr. Richard Luciani, an obstetrics and gynecology specialist, and Dr. Daniel Adler, a pediatric neurology specialist. Dr. Luciani opined that Dr. Bui’s delivery method departed from accepted standards of care and that excessive lateral traction caused S.Y.’s nerve injuries. Dr. Adler opined that the injuries occurred during the cesarean delivery and addressed S.Y.’s future educational, employment, and independent-living needs.

The Government intends to present testimony from Dr. Michele Spencer-Manzon, a clinical geneticist; Dr. Allan E. Rubenstein, a pediatric neurology specialist; and Dr. Desmond Sutton, an obstetrics and gynecology specialist. Their opinions included that S.Y. may have a congenital or genetic condition unrelated to the delivery, that the record did not establish traumatic nerve injuries caused during delivery, and that Dr. Bui did not depart from the standard of care.

Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony

Both sides moved under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to exclude portions of the opposing experts’ testimony. Rule 702 governs expert testimony and requires the proponent to show that the expert is qualified and that the testimony is based on sufficient facts, reliable methods, and a reliable application of those methods to the case.

Because this case will be tried to the court rather than a jury, the court concluded that the better approach was to hear the experts’ testimony and cross-examination at trial before deciding what testimony is admissible and what weight it should receive. The court also reserved judgment on whether Dr. Adler is qualified to testify about S.Y.’s future educational needs, employment prospects, and need for supported living. The court noted that Dr. Adler is not a vocational expert, education expert, or life-care planner, but has training in neurodevelopmental disabilities and experience as a pediatric neurologist.

The court therefore denied the plaintiffs’ motion to preclude expert testimony without prejudice to renewal at trial. It also denied without prejudice the Government’s motion to preclude expert testimony.

Summary Judgment

The Government moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is a ruling entered without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The Government’s motion depended entirely on excluding the plaintiffs’ experts and asserting that the plaintiffs then would lack admissible expert evidence to establish medical malpractice and causation.

Because the court denied without prejudice the Government’s motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ experts, it denied the Government’s motion for summary judgment. The court did not resolve at this stage whether Dr. Bui breached the medical standard of care or caused S.Y.’s injuries.

Disposition and Next Steps

The order denied the plaintiffs’ motion to preclude without prejudice. It denied without prejudice the Government’s motion to preclude and denied the Government’s motion for summary judgment. The parties were ordered to file a joint pretrial order by September 13, 2024, and trial was scheduled to begin on November 4, 2024.