Then in 2009, the parties made several motions following the discovery process, with different results from the prior appellate decision. GE sought summary judgment dismissing it from the action entirely; in addition, UIMA, Daniels, Lauria and Matalon sought to dismiss punitive damages; Daniels and New York Medical College sought to dismiss all claims against them; and the defendants sought to dismiss all claims of infliction of emotional distress brought by John Colombini.

The plaintiffs had four causes of action against GE including negligence, because GE allegedly owned, controlled and/or maintained the MRI facility at the hospital; negligent design and manufacturing of the MRI machine, as well as the negligent failure to warn; breach of warranty; and strict product liability. GE had argued that the causes of action were preempted by the Federal statute, Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (MDA). The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 128 S.Ct. 999 (2008), (see DM5509) that certain state law claims are preempted by the MDA's preemption clause. The appellate court held that most of the claims were dismissed under the preemption doctrine except the claim of negligence. However, the negligence claim was dismissed because the court found that the company had no responsibility for the machine's surroundings. GE was therefore dismissed as a defendant entirely in the case.


Daniels was also dismissed as a defendant in the same appellate decision as the court said he clearly had no formal responsibility for overseeing any aspect of the MRI facility. John Colombini's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress was dismissed. In that cause of action, a plaintiff must demonstrate a breach of a duty owed directly to the plaintiff which either endangered the plaintiff's physical safety or caused the plaintiff fear for his or her own physical safety during observation of the serious injury or death of a member of his or her immediate family. The Court held that Mr. Colombini had not proven he suffered any genuine and serious mental distress stemming from his fear of injury to himself, although he clearly feared for the safety of his son.

In addition, punitive damages against all other defendants except for UIMA were dismissed. The Court said Lauria should have spoken up about the oxygen canisters she had noticed, or moved them herself, but she did not have the responsibility to rearrange the MRI suite or to oversee its safety protocols, and she did not demonstrate a malicious intent and was not willfully or wantonly negligent or reckless. Although Matalon, as the Director of the Department of Radiology, was responsible for issuing policies and procedures (including any failure to review and update them), he had no involvement in the scan incident. The Court held that his being Director of the Department of Radiology is not sufficient to warrant a claim for punitive damages.

Read the original NYS Dept. of Health press release in 2001: http://www.nyhealth.gov/press/releases/2001/wmcmri.htm

Back to HCB News

More Industry Headlines