The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hurd, District Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER
Plaintiff Joyce Robinson commenced the instant medical malpractice action on May 4, 2001, arising out of the death of her son, Vernon Miller ("Miller"). Defendants Adirondack Medical Center ("AMC"), John A. Esper, M.D. ("Dr. Esper"), and Jay Federman, M.D. ("Dr. Federman") now move for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 seeking dismissal of the Complaint in its entirety.*fn1 Plaintiff opposes. Plaintiff also moves to continue the trial date and to retain an alternate expert. Defendants oppose. Oral argument was heard on September 27, 2003, in Albany, New York. Decision was reserved.
On May 30, 1999, Miller was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute in Ray Brook, New York ("FCI Ray Brook"). (Pl.'s Resp. to Defs'. Stmnt. of Mat. Facts at ¶ 1.)*fn2 At approximately 8:30 p.m. on May 30, 1999, another inmate stabbed Miller in the left anterior chest, just below the collar bone. (Id. at ¶ 2; Pl. Exs. 1, 3.) Miller was transported via ambulance to the AMC. (Pl.'s Resp. ¶ 3.) Dr. Esper, an employee of AMC, was notified of Miller's injury and condition before the ambulance arrived at the hospital. (Def. Ex. E — Esper Aff. at ¶ 4.) Dr. Esper then notified a surgeon, C. David Merkel, M.D. ("Dr. Merkel"), who was present in the hospital, about Miller's imminent arrival. (Id.) Dr. Merkel is a private physician with admitting privileges at the hospital. (Def Ex. J; Sarr Aff. at ¶ 2)
There are numerous discrepancies in the record regarding the timing of events. Records indicate that Miller arrived in the emergency room sometime between 9:10 and 9:24 p.m. Dr. Esper was the emergency room physician who cared for Miller upon his arrival at the emergency room. (Esper Aff. at ¶ 4.) As part of the emergency care, Dr. Esper ordered a portable chest x-ray, a Foley catheter and the administration of blood, oxygen, and intravenous fluids. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 6.) Dr. Merkel also was present in the emergency room. (Pl. Ex. 2.) At approximately 9:32 p.m.,*fn3 Dr. Merkel placed "[a] chest tube . . . through a midaxillary stab wound." (Pl. Exs. 1, 2.) Blood was provided to Miller. (Id.) At approximately 9:53 p.m., Miller was given a third unit of blood and was awaiting transfer to the operating room. (Pl. Ex. 2.) At approximately 10:05 p.m., Miller was transferred to the operating room. (Def. Ex. F.) At approximately 10:15 or 10:17 p.m., Miller suffered cardiac arrest. (Pl. Ex. 3.) CPR was started. (Id.) Dr. Esper performed a needle pericardiocentesis. (Esper Aff. at ¶ 7; Pl. Ex. 1.) Miller's heart was inspected for tamponade, which was not found. (Id.) Basic life support was started at approximately 10:20 p.m and terminated at 10:48 p.m. (Id.) Miller was pronounced dead at 10:48 p.m. (Id.)
A moving party is entitled to summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The ultimate inquiry is whether a reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party based on the evidence presented, the legitimate inferences that could be drawn from that evidence in favor of the nonmoving party, and the applicable burden of proof. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). In determining a motion for summary judgment, all inferences to be drawn from the facts contained in the exhibits and depositions "must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962); Hawkins v. Steingut, 829 F.2d 317, 319 (2d Cir. 1987). Nevertheless, "the litigant opposing summary judgment `may not rest upon mere conclusory allegations or denials' as a vehicle for obtaining a trial." Quinn v. Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp., 613 F.2d 438, 445 (2d Cir. 1980) (quoting SEC v. Research Automation Corp., 585 F.2d 31, 33 (2d Cir. 1978)).
On a motion for summary judgment, the defendants must first make a prima facie showing that they were not negligent in treating plaintiff. Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324-25 (1986). If the defendants satisfy this burden, the plaintiff "must submit evidentiary facts or materials to rebut the prima facie showing by the defendant physician that he was not negligent in treating plaintiff so as to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact." Id.
Defendants have met this burden by submitting expert affidavits and reports stating that Dr. Esper rendered proper care to Miller. One of defendants' experts, Roger Barrowman, M.D. ("Dr. Barrowman"), stated in his report that:
Dr. Esper supervised an organized plan of treatment
for a trauma victim . . . . He facilitated the contact
of the surgeon and the OR team. . . . He placed a
chest tube in the patient while in the E.D. [Emergency
Department] and decided to take the patient to the OR
[operating room]. I believe that was a wise decision
at the time. A controlled and better-equipped
operating room environment would normally provide a
better chance of successful outcome than an E.D.
"crash" thoracotomy. Retrospectively, with the autopsy
information, the decision was further supported. The
wound clearly required definitive surgical repair,
which could not have been performed in the ED.
Unfortunately, the patient's wound was so severe that
the readiness of the OR was impossible in the short
time required. . . . The issue of elapsed time in the
sequence of events may be argued as being excessive
and contributing to the patient's death. . . . I agree
that given the patient's injury, there was a brief
period of time when he may have been saved and that
saving this patient would have required surgery very
soon after the initial event. One can only speculate
on the exact length of time of this window of
opportunity, but in this patient, it was obviously
less than the approximately 1 hour and 47 minutes from
injury to cardiac arrest.
However, I disagree that providing such care was
possible given the circumstances in this case. . . .
[O]pening a patient's chest in a suboptimal
environment, i.e., in the field or the ED, is
associated with a mortality approaching 100%. . . .
[S]uch a "crash" thoracotomy . . . would have been a
difficult procedure . . . and the expertise (and time)
necessary to dissect, localize, and repair the
bleeding vessel would have precluded anything but an
OR procedure. . . .
The emergency care in this case was excellent. The
mortality for this type of injury is very high even in
large academic urban trauma centers under the best of
circumstances. There was no ...