G.T. v. United States

Background

G.T., through her mother and natural guardian Elizabeth Reyes, and Reyes individually sued the United States, Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center, BronxCare Health System, Mrudula Premkumar, M.D., and Jing Ja Yoon, M.D. Plaintiffs alleged that mistakes during Reyes’s labor and delivery and G.T.’s neonatal care caused G.T.’s permanent medical conditions.

The amended complaint asserted three causes of action: negligence and/or medical malpractice; lack of informed consent; and loss of services based on G.T.’s alleged inability to work and loss of future compensation. The court addressed pending motions to exclude expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, as well as motions for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

Expert-Testimony Motions

The Bronx Lebanon defendants moved to exclude testimony from plaintiffs’ obstetrics expert, Dr. Daryl Boffard; anesthesiology expert, Dr. Alexander Weingarten; and pediatric neurology expert, Dr. Louis Manganas. The United States moved to exclude opinions from Drs. Boffard and Manganas.

The court concluded that most of the challenged testimony met the requirements for admissibility. But it excluded three specific opinions:

- Dr. Boffard could testify that G.T.’s delivery caused brain damage, but he could not testify that the delivery caused cerebral palsy, hemiplegia, or the consequences of those conditions because he acknowledged that he was not qualified to offer an opinion on pediatric neurology. - Dr. Weingarten’s opinion that spinal anesthesia substantially contributed to G.T.’s injuries, including brain damage, was excluded. The court treated plaintiffs’ failure to address defendants’ qualification challenge as a concession. - Dr. Weingarten’s opinion that the anesthesia use departed from accepted medical practice was also excluded because plaintiffs did not respond to defendants’ argument that the opinion was speculative and based on another person’s record review.

Summary-Judgment Motions

Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment against Dr. Wilfrido Castillo on their medical-malpractice claim. Bronx Lebanon moved for summary judgment on issues including vicarious liability for Dr. Castillo’s actions, the role of Bronx Lebanon employees who acted under Dr. Castillo’s supervision, and whether G.T. received care meeting the standard in the neonatal intensive-care unit. The United States moved for summary judgment, arguing that the record lacked competent expert evidence supporting plaintiffs’ medical-malpractice claim.

Plaintiffs stated that they did not oppose defendants’ motions concerning the lack-of-informed-consent claims, Bronx Lebanon’s alleged vicarious liability for Dr. Castillo, and plaintiffs’ neonatal claims. The court therefore granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment as to those unopposed issues. The lack-of-informed-consent and neonatal-care claims, along with the allegation that Bronx Lebanon was vicariously liable for Dr. Castillo’s actions, were removed from the case.

The court denied summary judgment on the remaining contested medical-malpractice issues. It found genuine disputes of material fact concerning causation and liability, including conflicting expert opinions. Because those disputes could not be resolved on summary judgment, the remaining claims must be decided at trial.

Disposition

The defendants’ motions to exclude plaintiffs’ expert testimony were granted in part and denied in part. The defendants’ motions for summary judgment were also granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment was denied. The parties were ordered to confer about trial dates in September or October 2025 and submit suggested dates to the court by August 1, 2025. The order directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Docket Entries 71, 72, 73, 74, and 75.