Background
Plaintiff suffered from left-hand pain and swelling and was treated for several years by Sadia N. Ahmed, M.D. and Ahmed & Ahmed Physicians, P.C. (doing business as Suburban Rheumatology). The Ahmed defendants ordered an MRI in 2018, which was interpreted by radiologist Eric L. Snitzer, M.D. Snitzer’s report identified a mass in the left hand but did not indicate cancer. The rheumatologists continued treating plaintiff without ordering a biopsy.
Three years later, a worsening of symptoms prompted a second MRI in 2021, read by a different radiologist who immediately recommended a biopsy. The biopsy confirmed synovial sarcoma, a rare form of cancer. Plaintiff’s left hand had to be amputated. Plaintiff alleged that the Ahmed defendants were negligent in failing to diagnose the cancer and in not recommending a biopsy after the 2018 MRI, and that Snitzer was negligent both in misreading the MRI and in failing to recommend a biopsy.
All parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied all motions. Plaintiff and defendants all appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Department affirmed the denials on most issues but granted one aspect of Snitzer’s cross-motion, partially modifying the order.
On plaintiff’s motion, the court upheld the denial. To win summary judgment on a medical malpractice claim, plaintiff must establish both deviation from the standard of care and that the deviation caused injury. Here, plaintiff submitted testimony from Ahmed and Snitzer themselves, which raised genuine issues about whether they deviated—meaning plaintiff failed to meet her own burden on the initial motion. Summary judgment was properly denied without even considering defendants’ opposition.
On the Ahmed defendants’ cross-motion, the court upheld the denial. Although Ahmed submitted a sufficiently detailed and specific affirmation addressing each negligence allegation, plaintiff raised triable issues through expert affirmations from a rheumatologist and a plastic surgeon, who opined that the rheumatologists deviated from the standard of care and that the deviation was a proximate cause of the delayed diagnosis. The expert qualification objections raised by defendants were not preserved, having been raised for the first time on appeal.
On Snitzer’s cross-motion, the court granted partial relief. Snitzer’s expert established that the cancer existed for years before the 2018 MRI and, at that time, was of a size and location that made limb salvage unrealistic—satisfying his burden on causation. Plaintiff’s plastic surgery expert raised a fact issue on causation by opining that Snitzer’s misreading delayed diagnosis and reduced the chance of limb salvage. Those issues will go to a jury.
However, the court granted that portion of Snitzer’s cross-motion addressing the specific claim that he was negligent for failing to recommend a biopsy. A radiologist’s professional role is to read and interpret imaging—not to assume a general duty to recommend further testing, schedule follow-up, or diagnose the underlying medical condition. That affirmative duty falls on the treating physician. Holding that a radiologist breached a standard of care by not independently recommending a biopsy after identifying a mass would improperly expand the scope of radiological practice.
Key Takeaways
- A radiologist does not assume a general duty to recommend biopsies, order further testing, or diagnose underlying medical conditions—those obligations rest with the treating physician. A malpractice claim premised solely on a radiologist’s failure to recommend a biopsy is legally insufficient.
- On a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case, submitting the defendants’ own deposition testimony that raises issues of fact about standard of care defeats the motion before the burden shifts; plaintiff must establish deviation and causation as a matter of law before defendants must respond.
- Objections to the qualifications of an opposing party’s medical expert must be raised in the trial court; a physician need not be a specialist in the exact relevant field to qualify as an expert—any knowledge gap goes to weight, not admissibility.
Why It Matters
This decision has significant practical importance for radiologists and their malpractice insurers practicing in New York. The Fourth Department’s holding that a radiologist has no general duty to recommend follow-up testing or biopsy after identifying an ambiguous finding on imaging is a clear limiting principle that draws the boundary of radiological professional responsibility. Radiologists read images—they do not independently manage care or bear the treating physician’s duty to pursue diagnostic workup.
For plaintiffs’ malpractice counsel, the case illustrates the importance of distinguishing between two separate theories against a radiologist: (1) negligent image interpretation, which remains viable where supported by expert opinion; and (2) failure to recommend biopsy, which the Fourth Department has now squarely rejected. Cases involving missed cancer on imaging should be pleaded and tried on the interpretation theory, not on the treating-physician theory that the radiologist should have ordered the next test.