In this medical malpractice case, the court must decide whether the plaintiff’s expert testimony was sufficient to rebut the defendant’s expert’s testimony which established a prima facie showing supporting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissal.
Plaintiff Peterson filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against defendant Dr. Garber. In her claim, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant improperly performed amniocentesis, and as a result her infant son’s right eye was penetrated with a needle. Plaintiff alleges that this caused her baby to suffer a condition called microphthalmia (small eye). In addition, her baby is blind in that eye and must wear an ocular prosthesis. Defendant Garber filed a motion for summary judgment dismissal of the case, asserting that the baby’s condition was not caused by improper amniocentesis, but was actually a developmental anomaly.
When a defendant files a motion for summary judgment dismissal, the defendant has the burden of presenting a prima facie case that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that based on the undisputed facts, the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the defendant offers a prima facie showing, then the burden shifts to the plaintiff.