Victory on Motion for Summary Judgment: CPLR 205(a) and Hospital Vicarious Liability

Kevin Lee secured a favorable summary judgment decision in a case involving a 36-year-old mother who suffered cardiac arrest and was resuscitated but not properly treated in the ICU. The ICU team failed to use targeted temperature management, a necessary step to prevent fever, swelling, and further brain injury.

The defendants argued there was insufficient evidence to justify a trial. They also claimed the lawsuit was improperly filed before an estate representative was appointed and that the hospital could not be held vicariously liable for the ICU physicians. The court rejected both arguments.

Below is a breakdown of these two key legal issues and how our firm prevailed.

CPLR 205(a) Saving Statute: Preserving Wrongful Death Claims During Estate Delays

Wrongful death and survival actions in New York must be brought by a formally appointed estate representative, such as an administrator when there is no will or an executor when there is one. However, Surrogate's Court appointments can take months.

Families often find themselves in a legal trap: the statute of limitations is expiring, but no one yet has legal authority to file the lawsuit.

To prevent families from losing their claim due to administrative delays, New York provides a safeguard: CPLR 205(a), known as the “saving statute”. It allows a new action to be filed within six months of the dismissal of a prior timely action, if that prior action was dismissed on a non-merits ground, such as lack of capacity or a procedural defect.

In this case, our firm filed the initial lawsuit naming a proposed administrator while the Surrogate’s Court petition was still pending. This preserved the claim within the statute of limitations. Once the Surrogate’s Court appointed the actual administrator, we recommenced the action under CPLR 205(a).

Defense counsel argued that CPLR 205(a) did not apply because the plaintiff in the first action (the proposed administrator) was a different individual from the plaintiff in the recommenced action (the appointed administrator). We successfully opposed this argument.

The court agreed that CPLR 205(a) does not require the same person to serve as plaintiff in both actions. What matters is the continuity of the underlying right rather than the identity of the estate representative. The ruling reaffirms that CPLR 205(a) must be interpreted liberally to protect families who act diligently but face unavoidable procedural barriers.

How Mduba Liability Extends to ICU Emergencies and Hospital Negligence

The patient originally entered the hospital for an elective procedure under the care of a private physician. After suffering sudden cardiac arrest, she was transferred to the ICU, where in-house hospital personnel controlled her care instead of the private attending physician.

Although the ICU physicians were negligent, the hospital attempted to avoid liability by arguing that these doctors were also private contractors. The court rejected that argument.

We demonstrated that when a medical emergency occurs during hospitalization, and the patient’s immediate treatment is taken over by hospital staff, the situation is legally analogous to entering the emergency department. In such circumstances, under the Mduba doctrine, a hospital can be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of physicians who are, in form, independent contractors but function as agents of the hospital.

The court agreed, marking an important clarification:

Mduba liability extends to situations where a patient initially enters a hospital for private care but becomes dependent on hospital staff due to a sudden emergency.