In S. v. T.V.H., PLLC, the Appellate Term served up a judicial hairball to the Suffolk County District Court, and reversed a dismissal of a small claims case.
T.S., a pro se plaintiff and evidently a man unwilling to let his cat’s death go quietly, sued a veterinary group -- T.V.H. -- for $5,000, alleging that their vet’s slapdash diagnosis of cancer—sans bloodwork, sans X-rays, and apparently sans common sense—plus a 13-day delay in stopping the poor feline’s bleeding, amounted to malpractice.
But before T.S. could even get his claws into the case, the District Court judge tossed the case mid-opening statement, citing the absence of an expert witness as grounds for dismissal.
On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, was not amused. It reminded the lower court that small claims is supposed to be about “substantial justice,” not procedural gatekeeping. And while expert testimony is usually required in malpractice cases, they noted that sometimes the alleged conduct is so eyebrow-raising that even a layperson can spot the malpractice from across the room. (Like, say, letting a cat bleed for nearly two weeks while playing diagnostic roulette.)
So, the dismissal was reversed and the case sent back for a new trial. T.S. gets another shot, and T.V.H. might want to assert a better defense. Because if the facts really do “bespeak improper treatment,” this courtroom drama is just getting started.
Looks like the AT2 let the cat out of the bag there.
# # #
DECISION