📖 Case Summary: Schultz v Albany Med. Ctr.

In this Appellate Division, Third Department decision, the court affirmed dismissal of a medical malpractice and wrongful death action based on the plaintiff’s failure to timely and properly disclose expert testimony. The ruling underscores how strictly New York courts enforce CPLR 3101(d) expert disclosure rules, particularly after the note of issue is filed.

⚡️ What Happened:

The plaintiff, acting as administrator of his wife’s estate, alleged negligent medical care during her hospitalization, focusing on surgical treatment and post-operative monitoring.

During discovery, Supreme Court set — and repeatedly extended — deadlines for expert disclosure through 2022.

When the note of issue was filed, the plaintiff disclosed only one expert, a forensic pathologist, and failed to provide the required CPLR 3101(d)(1) summary of opinions.

The defendants timely disclosed three experts:

• a gastroenterologist
• an oncologist/hematologist
• a pathologist

They then moved for summary judgment.

In opposition, the plaintiff attempted — for the first time — to introduce a new expert surgeon, whose opinions addressed issues different from those identified in the original disclosure.

Supreme Court denied the request to supplement expert disclosure and granted summary judgment to the defendants.

📝 Court’s Ruling:

The Third Department affirmed.

The Court held that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the late-disclosed expert because:

• The plaintiff offered no good cause for the late disclosure;
• The new expert was disclosed seven months after the note of issue;
• The new expert addressed entirely different subject matter than the previously disclosed expert; and
• Boilerplate language reserving the “right to supplement” expert disclosures is ineffective.

The Court further held that summary judgment was properly granted because:

• Defendants’ experts established compliance with accepted medical standards
• Plaintiff’s only expert (a pathologist) failed to address:
  • deviations from the standard of care;
  • causation; and
  • the medical treatment actually at issue.

Without competent expert proof on deviation and causation, the malpractice claim could not survive.

✅ Key Legal Takeaways:

🔹 Late Expert Disclosures Are Routinely Precluded
Courts will not permit post–note of issue expert substitutions absent a strong showing of good cause. Generic reservation language does not preserve the right to add experts later.

🔹 Expert Scope Must Match the Alleged Malpractice
An expert who does not address the actual treatment decisions at issue cannot defeat summary judgment — even if credentialed in a related discipline.

🔹 Failure to Comply with CPLR 3101(d) Is Fatal
Incomplete or noncompliant expert disclosures expose plaintiffs to preclusion and dismissal.

🔹 Summary Judgment Remains a Powerful Defense Tool
When defendants submit competent expert affirmations and plaintiffs cannot rebut them with admissible expert proof, dismissal is appropriate as a matter of law.

▌Practical Takeaway:

New York courts strictly enforce expert disclosure deadlines, especially after the note of issue. Late or improper expert disclosures can be fatal to malpractice claims, and boilerplate reservations will not save them. For insurers and defense counsel, this decision reinforces the value of aggressive expert-based summary judgment practice.

👉 Explore more New York decisions affecting claims handling, motion practice, and litigation strategy at New York Civil Law — Case Summaries & Legal Updates. Clearly Explained.

Photo Credit to Alexandr Podvalny