Gotlin v. Lederman
483 F. App'x 583
2d Cir.2012Background
- Gotlin, as public administrator, sues Lederman, hospitals, and physicians for fraud and related claims arising from use of Fractionated Stereotactic Radiosurgery (FSR) on decedents with pancreatic cancer.
- District court dismissed common-law fraud, RICO, informed-consent, and hospital-negligence claims on pleadings or summary judgment grounds.
- Marketing materials allegedly touted high FSR success rates (e.g., 94%) for pancreatic cancer, which plaintiffs contend were deceptive.
- Plaintiffs’ medical experts suggested the brochures’ representations were misleading, implying FSR had very high success for hopeless cases, contrary to medical reality.
- The court granted summary judgment on RICO standing and certain negligence/informed-consent claims, and later denied others, leading to an appeal that resulted in partial affirmation and partial remand.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit held issues remained regarding whether marketing claims violated New York Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349–350 and whether plaintiffs suffered cognizable injuries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud claim viability for damages | Fraud damages are distinct from malpractice damages. | Damages from fraud are not distinct from malpractice damages. | Fraud claim dismissed; no distinct damages. |
| RICO standing | Plaintiffs suffered business/property injuries from the alleged scheme. | Injuries are personal, not to business/property. | RICO claim dismissed for lack of RICO-injury. |
| Informed-consent and hospital negligence | Language barriers or misdiagnosis support informed-consent and negligence claims. | Insufficient evidence of language barriers or causal negligence. | District court properly dismissed these claims; no material evidence of causation. |
| Gen. Bus. L. §§ 349–350 deceptive marketing | Defendants’ marketing of FSR misled reasonable consumers about success rates. | Marketing claims require evidence of deception; record insufficient on summary judgment. | Record presents genuine issues of material fact; remanded on deception/arising injuries. |
Key Cases Cited
- S. Cherry St., LLC v. Hennessee Grp. LLC, 573 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2009) (pleading standards for plausibility under Iqbal/Twombly)
- Pilgrim v. Luther, 571 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standard and material facts)
- D’Amico v. City of New York, 132 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 1998) (summary judgment standard; no genuine issue of material fact)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (genuine issue of material fact; standard for JMOL)
- Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 1998) (issues not sufficiently argued are waived on appeal)
- Goshen v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 N.Y.2d 314 (N.Y. 2002) (Gen. Bus. L. § 349 applicability to in-state vs out-of-state transactions)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1985) (standing requirements for civil RICO claims)
- Workman-like reference for discovery sanctions and related standards, 427 U.S. 639 (Supreme Court 1976) (discipline for discovery abuses)