FKB’s Tracy S. Katz and Irina Zamyatin won a summary judgment motion on behalf FKB’s client, an Emergency Room physician, in a case involving allegations that the ER doctor failed to diagnose the plaintiff with a transient ischemic attack (TIA – i.e. a brief stroke-like attack that often precedes a stroke) while the patient was in the ER on June 16, 2015. It was undisputed that the patient did not suffer a stroke until the following day, June 17, 2015 (well after our ER doctor’s shift had ended). Plaintiff’s counsel opposed the motion with two experts, an Emergency Medicine expert and a Neurology expert, who argued that had our client diagnosed the TIA, then plaintiff would have been monitored with neuro checks and TPA (tissue plasminogen activator) could have been timely administered when the patient suffered the stroke the following day, thereby minimizing and/or preventing the patient’s injuries. FKB astutely argued that even assuming a TIA could have been diagnosed by our client, TPA could not be administered until a stroke actually occurs, which admittedly was not until after our client’s involvement ended. Therefore, the treatment that plaintiff received under our client’s care would not have changed in any substantive way. Despite the motion being opposed by two experts, Judge O’Donoghue, of Supreme Court, Queens County agreed with FKB’s arguments that that plaintiff did not suffer a stroke, or any other injuries for that matter, while under our client’s care, and therefore, there was no nexus between the care our client provided and plaintiff’s alleged injuries.