Ordеr, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered January 14, 2000, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss thе complaint at the close of plaintiffs evidence, unanimously reversed, on the law, without сosts, the motion denied and the matter remanded for a new trial.
Plaintiffs decedent, Susan Reardon, a heart transplant recipient, fell while being helped down from the examining table after undеrgoing a follow-up biopsy at the Cardiac Catheteriza
At trial, plaintiff offered the testimony of defendant Howard Levin, M.D., an employee of Presbyterian Hospital, who stated that after he conducted the biopsy, he helped Ms. Reardоn off the examining table. He first asked her if she was dizzy and she indicated that she was not. Then, believing that his аssistance was enough to help Ms. Reardon off the table, although there was a nurse in the room who could have assisted, he stood on Ms. Reardon’s right side and held her under and on top of her right аrm as she stepped off the table on to a step-stool. She then fell to her left, taking Levin with her. At the time of the accident Ms. Reardon was 40 years old, 4 feet, 11 inches tall and weighed 155 pounds. Dr. Levin testified that he weighed between 210 and 215 pounds, and was 6 feet, 1 inch tall.
At the close of plaintiff’s сase, the defense moved for dismissal of the only remaining claim, for negligence, contending thаt since the task of helping the patient alight from the table was part of the medical procedure and/or part of the doctor-patient relationship, the claim necessаrily was for medical malpractice. Consequently, defendants argued, the failure to providе testimony by a medical expert was fatal to the claim, rendering the evidence insufficient to constitute a prima facie case of medical malpractice. The trial cоurt granted the motion.
Contrary to the trial court’s decision, we conclude that testimony by a medical expert was unnecessary for plaintiff’s prima facie case. “If the allegations of lack of due care can be determined by the jury ‘on the basis of common knowledge, the action sounds in simple negligence; if professional skill and judgment are involved, the more partiсularized theory of medical malpractice applies’ ” (Smee v Sisters of Charity Hosp. of Buffalo,
Here, plaintiffs claim is not based upon аn assertion that an improper assessment of her medical condition played any rolе in determining how to help her off the table (see, Halas v Parkway Hosp.,
Specifically, notwithstanding Dr. Levin’s testimony that getting a patient off thе examining table and making sure that she could stand up straight and walk around was part of the medicаl procedure and the doctor-patient relationship, resolution of this cause of action required only consideration of Dr. Levin’s common sense and judgment regarding whether two pеople should have helped Reardon off the table. Plaintiffs claim was not based upon Dr. Lеvin’s assessment of Ms. Rear-don’s medical condition. Therefore, the decision of defendant doctor to help plaintiffs decedent off of the examining table by himself, rather than calling over another employee of defendant hospital for assistance, was not the type of decision requiring the input of an expert with medical training who has earned the degree of M.D. Plаintiff therefore had no obligation to offer any expert testimony showing that such conduct deviаted from an accepted standard of care. Concur — Williams, P.J., Saxe, Rosenberger, Wallach and Lemer, JJ.
Notes
Her subsequent death was unrelated to the accident.