▶ Video explainer coming soon
The Appellate Division agreed with the trial court. It ruled that Dr. Tetsoti had met his initial burden. His expert clearly stated the treatment followed accepted medical standards. This shifted the burden to Sobirov to show a real dispute existed. But the court found Sobirov's expert fell short. The physician from Uzbekistan never confirmed he knew the standard of care used in New York. He also didn't confirm familiarity with any broader national standard. Because of this gap, the court said his opinion couldn't be used to challenge Dr. Tetsoti's expert. The dismissal of the malpractice claim was upheld.
In April 2018, Tolibjon Sobirov sued Dr. Larry Tetsoti for medical malpractice. Sobirov claimed that after Dr. Tetsoti performed a prostate biopsy, he developed an E-coli infection. Dr. Tetsoti asked the court to dismiss the case before trial. He submitted a sworn statement from his own medical expert. That expert said the treatment matched accepted medical standards. Sobirov pushed back and submitted his own expert to challenge that claim. His expert was a physician practicing in Uzbekistan. The trial court sided with Dr. Tetsoti and dismissed the malpractice claim. Sobirov appealed that decision to a higher court.
The key question was about expert testimony. In medical malpractice cases, an expert must show they understand the right standard of care. That means knowing the rules doctors follow in New York, or at least a similar national standard. The question here: did Sobirov's expert from Uzbekistan meet that requirement? Without a qualified expert, could Sobirov's case move forward?
This case shows why expert qualifications matter so much in malpractice lawsuits. A medical expert must connect their experience to the right legal standard of care. Foreign training alone isn't enough without that link. This ruling reinforces a consistent rule in New York courts on this issue.
Talk to a licensed medical malpractice lawyer in New York.