Court Denies Summary Judgment in NUMC Hypercapnia Death Case, Allowing Medical Malpractice Claims to Proceed to Trial
On June 26, 2026, Creedon & Gill P.C. attorney Peter J. Creedon prevailed in the Supreme Court, Nassau County when the Hon. Eileen C. Daly-Sapraicone, denied a Nassau University Medical Center motion for summary judgment in the case of Yevoli v. Nassau Health Care Corporation. Her decision allows this complex medical malpractice and wrongful death action to proceed to trial.
The decision addresses two significant issues in New York medical malpractice litigation: the application of the continuous treatment doctrine to municipal hospitals and the responsibility of treating physicians to recognize and protect medically vulnerable patients during routine procedures.
The Case
Charles Yevoli was a quadriplegic with longstanding cervical spinal cord injuries and chronic respiratory muscle weakness. He was a known chronic carbon dioxide retainer, meaning he was at risk for being poisoned by the accumulation of carbon dioxide in his blood if simple precautions were not followed.
While hospitalized at Nassau University Medical Center in January 2021, Mr. Yevoli underwent a bone marrow biopsy. Before this procedure Mr. Yevoli’s vulnerability was passed over. During the procedure NUMC physicians failed to provide appropriate respiratory support during the procedure, failed to monitor his carbon dioxide levels, and failed to respond appropriately to his complaints of breathing difficulty.
These failures resulted in a carbon dioxide poisoning causing “hypercapnic” respiratory and cardiac arrest which left Mr. Yevoli dependent on mechanical ventilation after the procedure and which ultimately led to his death approximately ten months later.
Defendants’ Primary Argument: The Case Was Untimely
Because NUMC is a municipal hospital, the defendants argued that General Municipal Law § 50-i required commencement of the action within one year and ninety days after the alleged malpractice. Since the bone marrow biopsy occurred on January 19, 2021, and the action was commenced on December 27, 2022, defendants contended that every claim arising from the procedure was time-barred.
The Court Agreed That the Continuous Treatment Doctrine Applied, BUT…
Creedon & Gill established that Mr. Yevoli remained under continuous pulmonary treatment by NUMC a NUMC pulmonologist for the respiratory injuries caused by the January 2021 event until his death in November 2021.
The court found several important facts supported application of the continuous treatment doctrine, one of them being that one of the goals of the Doctor’s treatment was to liberate Mr. Yevoli from the ventilator that became necessary following the respiratory arrest.
The Court pointed out that medical records documented extensive, ongoing pulmonary treatment rather than isolated or sporadic encounters.
NUMC attempted to argue that the continuous treatment could not apply because their Doctor was not individually named as a defendant. The court rejected that position, holding that treatment by physicians employed by the municipal hospital may satisfy the continuous treatment doctrine even when the physician is not separately named in the lawsuit.
This portion of the decision is particularly noteworthy for practitioners handling municipal hospital cases involving continuing care after an initial injury.
Competing Experts Created Questions for the Jury
The court next examined the competing expert affirmations.
The defense experts maintained that a pre-procedure pulmonary consultation met accepted standards of care, and that Mr. Yevoli’s extensive preexisting medical conditions independently explained his deterioration.
Creedon & Gill countered with detailed affirmations from pulmonologist Dr. C. Gerard Petersen and a hospitalist showing that the procedure should have been postponed because Mr. Yevoli had active pneumonia, pleural effusions, and atelectasis; physicians failed to appreciate the significance of his chronic CO₂ retention, failed to monitor carbon dioxide levels and failed to have ventilatory support on hand.
The court held that these competing medical opinions created classic credibility issues that cannot be resolved on summary judgment.
The Court Also Found Issues of Fact Regarding a NUMC Officer
Another significant portion of the decision concerns an officer at NUMC who was also Charles Yevoli’s personal physician. NUMC argued that no physician-patient relationship existed and therefore no legal duty could arise.
The court disagreed that the issue could be resolved as a matter of law.
Evidence showed that the officer recommended that Mr. Yevoli undergo the bone marrow biopsy at NUMC, communicated directly with the family regarding his care, allegedly participated in treatment decisions surrounding the hospitalization.
Creedon & Gill experts further opined that the officer failed to adequately communicate the patient’s history of chronic hypercapnia and Trilogy dependence to the treating team.
Because the parties’ experts sharply disagreed regarding both the existence of a physician-patient relationship and the applicable standard of care, the court held those issues must be decided by a jury rather than on summary judgment.
Why This Decision Matters
Although a denial of summary judgment does not determine liability, this decision highlights several recurring issues in modern medical malpractice litigation.
First, it confirms that continuous treatment may extend the statute of limitations in municipal hospital cases where ongoing treatment addresses complications arising from the original alleged malpractice.
Second, it reinforces that physicians performing procedures cannot necessarily rely upon another specialty’s consultation when obvious risks are apparent from the patient’s history. The plaintiffs’ experts emphasized that every treating physician bears an independent responsibility to recognize significant respiratory vulnerability and take reasonable precautions.
Finally, the decision illustrates the limited role of summary judgment in medical malpractice actions. Where qualified experts present competing opinions regarding departures from accepted practice and causation, those issues generally belong to the jury.
As the court ultimately concluded, genuine questions of fact remained regarding NUMC’s care of Charles Yevoli, making trial—not summary judgment—the appropriate forum for resolving those disputes.