Evadine Bailey sued Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center for wrongful death and medical malpractice because she believed that her son's treatment didn't comply with medically acceptable practices. (Apparently, Evadine's son had incurred a second gunshot wound which hadn't been immediately discovered by physicians, and filed an appeal after her negligence case was dismissed.)
Because the jury was free to reject the testimony of Evadine's expert (and the hospital presented "legally sufficient evidence" that no negligence occurred), the Appellate Division, Second Department, declined to reinstate the case.
Was that kind of treatment deserved?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Bailey v. Brookdale Univ. Hosp. & Med. Ctr.