Castillo v. Bikvan: Disputed Symptom Onset and Unaddressed Language Barriers Create Triable Issues Defeating Summary Judgment in ER Misdiagnosis Cases

1. Introduction

In Castillo v Bikvan (2026 NY Slip Op 00191), the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed an order denying summary judgment to an emergency-department physician and hospital in a medical malpractice action. The plaintiff mother sued on behalf of her 10-year-old daughter (and herself) after the child was evaluated at Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center for abdominal pain and vomiting, discharged with a suspected diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis, and then—after worsening symptoms—was diagnosed at Montefiore with ovarian torsion requiring a left salpingo-oophorectomy.

The appeal turned on whether defendants established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on (i) departure from accepted standards of care and (ii) causation, where the record contained sharply conflicting accounts about the onset, location, and description of the child’s pain, and where the mother had limited English proficiency yet no interpreter was provided.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The First Department unanimously affirmed denial of summary judgment. It held defendants failed to make a prima facie showing on departure because the “hotly contested” timing and emanation of pain made it impossible, on this record, to fix the applicable standard of care and determine whether it was met. The Court further held that, even assuming a prima facie showing, plaintiff’s expert raised triable issues on both departure and causation—opining that a pediatric patient with acute lower abdominal pain warranted prompt ultrasound/CT and a CBC to assess for conditions including ovarian torsion, and that timely evaluation could have saved the ovary and tube. The Court also noted triable issues stemming from inconsistent symptom histories and raised an additional factual issue whether the failure to provide a Spanish interpreter contributed to inaccurate history-taking and, in turn, delayed diagnosis.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

Anyie B. v Bronx Lebanon Hosp., 128 AD3d 1 (1st Dept 2015)
The Court cited Anyie B. for the proposition that when key facts necessary to identify the governing standard of care are disputed, summary judgment is inappropriate. In Castillo, the disputed history—whether pain began the day before or days earlier, and whether it was pelvic/lower abdominal—was “critical” because it drives what differential diagnoses and workup (imaging, labs, consultations) a reasonable emergency provider should pursue. The citation underscores that, at the summary judgment stage, courts will not resolve credibility contests over symptom timing and description when those disputes are material to both departure and causation.
Corcino v Filstein, 32 AD3d 201 (1st Dept 2006)
Defendants attacked plaintiff’s expert (a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist) as unqualified to opine on adolescent emergency gynecologic care. The Court relied on Corcino to reject exclusion-by-credentialing: where the expert’s background is sufficient to address the medical issue, alleged shortcomings go to the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility. Applied here, the OB-GYN’s decades of experience sufficed to opine on ovarian torsion standards; defendants’ critique became a jury issue rather than a gatekeeping basis for summary judgment.

B. Legal Reasoning

Material factual disputes can prevent defendants from meeting their prima facie burden.
In New York medical malpractice summary judgment practice, defendants must first establish, through competent evidence (typically expert affirmation), either (a) no departure from accepted practice or (b) no causation. The First Department held defendants did not clear that threshold on departure because the factual predicates necessary to define what “accepted practice” required were themselves disputed. If the history was acute and lower abdominal/pelvic, the standard may demand a torsion-focused workup; if the history was diffuse or prolonged, defendants argued a gastroenteritis/constipation pathway could be reasonable. The Court refused to pick between those competing factual narratives on motion practice.
Causation opinions may hinge on disputed timing—and timing was disputed.
Defendants’ expert asserted ovaries become necrotic within hours of torsion, implying that even timely diagnosis would not have changed the outcome. But that causation position depended on when symptoms began and what symptoms were present—issues clouded by conflicting deposition testimony and incongruent chart notations. The Court treated those inconsistencies as classic triable issues: if the torsion process was recent (hours), earlier testing could plausibly have enabled detorsion and organ salvage; if it was days old, salvage might be unlikely. With the timeline unresolved, causation could not be decided as a matter of law.
Plaintiff’s expert created fact issues on both the workup and the “rule-out” obligation.
Plaintiff’s expert framed the standard of care as requiring additional testing (ultrasound/CT and CBC) for a pediatric patient with acute lower abdominal pain and vomiting to evaluate for ovarian torsion and infection/inflammation. The Court emphasized that overlap with benign conditions (constipation or gastroenteritis) does not eliminate the duty to consider and reasonably rule out time-sensitive, high-harm diagnoses when the presentation supports them.
Failure to provide a Spanish interpreter was treated as potentially outcome-relevant.
While the decision does not create a standalone interpreter cause of action, it recognizes a concrete evidentiary consequence: where the record shows limited English proficiency, no interpreter, and disputed symptom history, a jury may find that communication failures contributed to incomplete or inaccurate history-taking—thereby affecting both the diagnostic pathway (departure) and the time-to-diagnosis (causation). The Court used the absence of interpreter services to reinforce that disputes about “what was said” and “what was understood” were genuinely triable.

C. Impact

1) Summary judgment will be harder to obtain when the diagnostic standard turns on contested history.
Castillo signals that defendants cannot rely on charted histories alone—particularly where the patient/family disputes those entries and offers plausible reasons for discrepancy (e.g., language barriers; pediatric communication limitations such as selective mutism). Where symptom onset and location are central to the diagnostic algorithm, those disputes can defeat prima facie entitlement.

2) Interpreter lapses can become a core “triable issue” fact—even without an explicit statutory holding.
The decision encourages litigants to scrutinize language access in acute-care settings. Hospitals and clinicians may face increased litigation risk where documentation shows limited English proficiency yet no interpreter was attempted, because that gap can undermine the reliability of recorded histories and discharge instructions.

3) Expert-qualification attacks may be less effective if the expert’s specialty reasonably overlaps.
By invoking Corcino v Filstein, the Court reinforces that specialty mismatch arguments often go to weight. Plaintiffs in torsion and other time-sensitive gynecologic emergencies may be able to proceed with OB-GYN experts even when care occurred in an emergency department, so long as the expert can credibly address the condition and standard of care.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary judgment: A pretrial ruling that ends the case (or claims) without a trial only if no material facts are genuinely disputed and the moving party is entitled to win as a matter of law.
Prima facie showing: The moving party’s initial burden to present enough evidence—before the opponent must respond—to warrant judgment. If defendants fail this step, the motion is denied regardless of the plaintiff’s opposing proof.
Departure (from the standard of care): A failure to act as a reasonably competent provider would under similar circumstances (e.g., not ordering tests that accepted practice requires for a given presentation).
Causation: Proof that the alleged departure was a substantial factor in causing the injury. In delayed-diagnosis cases, this often turns on whether earlier diagnosis would have changed treatment options or outcomes.
Ovarian torsion: Twisting of the ovary (often with the fallopian tube) that can cut off blood supply; it can be time-sensitive because prolonged loss of blood flow may cause tissue death (necrosis).
Left salpingo-oophorectomy: Surgical removal of the left ovary and left fallopian tube.
Triable issue of fact: A genuine dispute about important facts that must be resolved by a factfinder (usually a jury), not by a judge on papers.

5. Conclusion

Castillo v Bikvan reinforces a practical rule for New York medical malpractice litigation: when the applicable standard of care and causation analysis depend on disputed symptom history—especially where communication barriers may explain discrepancies—summary judgment is unlikely. By coupling contested onset/location of pain with the undisputed absence of interpreter services, the First Department treated the accuracy of history-taking and patient/parent understanding as central, trial-worthy issues. The decision also reiterates that reasonable expert overlap is enough to get to a jury, with credential disputes generally affecting weight rather than admissibility.