Zhang v. Weseley

Background

Hongwei Zhang brought this case without a lawyer against Peter Weseley, New York Eye & Ear Infirmary, NYU Langone Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, and Michael Browdy. The case concerned surgery and later treatment involving Zhang’s right eye. Zhang alleged that Weseley removed the lens from that eye without consent, causing complete loss of vision, and later provided treatment without consent that harmed her left eye. Her Second Amended Complaint asserted battery, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty.

Zhang also alleged that Weseley and Browdy intentionally destroyed, redacted, altered, or concealed medical records relevant to the litigation. The defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under the rule allowing dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. They argued that the claims were inadequately pleaded and that the battery and some fraudulent-misrepresentation claims were barred by statutes of limitations.

Statute of Limitations

The court applied New York statutes of limitations. It held that New York’s one-year limitations period for battery applied to the alleged lens removal on July 23, 2014 and to the alleged unauthorized treatment during the October 31, 2019 visit. The related deadlines therefore passed before Zhang filed this action on January 3, 2023.

The court rejected Zhang’s arguments for extending those deadlines. It concluded that the continuing effects of alleged wrongful acts did not establish continuing wrongful acts; that Zhang discovered the lens removal in 2015, making the discovery rule insufficient; and that the alleged concealment would not extend the deadline beyond approximately 2016. The court also found that Zhang had not shown the type of legal disability recognized by New York law for tolling, and that her language difficulties, limited eyesight, and difficulty understanding the legal theory did not establish that she was unable to protect her legal rights.

Claims

The court dismissed the battery claims as untimely and therefore as failing to state a claim. It found that the fraudulent-misrepresentation claim based on Weseley’s July 2014 statement that Zhang’s eyesight would return was also untimely. The court determined that the claim based on Weseley’s October 31, 2019 statement that Zhang’s right eye had already been blind was timely, but inadequately pleaded. According to the court, Zhang alleged that she knew the statement was false when Weseley made it, so she could not show reasonable reliance, an element of fraudulent misrepresentation.

Because the fraudulent-misrepresentation claims failed, the court also dismissed Zhang’s vicarious-liability claims against New York Eye & Ear Infirmary, NYU Langone Health, and NYU Grossman School of Medicine. The court dismissed the fiduciary-duty claims against Weseley and Browdy, reasoning that, even assuming medical-record spoliation occurred and a fiduciary duty existed, Zhang could not show that the alleged conduct caused legally relevant harm because the other claims could not proceed regardless.

Disposition

The court denied leave to amend, finding that amendment would be futile because Zhang had not identified additional facts that would cure the defects. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice and without leave to amend. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the defendants’ motions and Zhang’s letter motion concerning an alleged conflict of interest, which the court said it had resolved in an earlier order.