Plaintiff alleged that a home attendant employed by the co-defendant home care company left the 86-year-old decedent unattended for at least a minute in the shower, at home, thus allowing him to fall and fracture six ribs, requiring hospitalization, and causing him to develop pneumonia and ultimately die in the hospital six months later. Plaintiff further alleged that a nurse employed by our client, a managed-care program, negligently failed to diagnose the fractures, or any injury, when he arrived 45 minutes later to perform a bi-weekly, general medical assessment of the decedent, finding the patient in bed, asleep, arousable, making no complaints, and possessing normal blood pressure, temperature and other vital signs. It was established that the home care attendant did not advise the nurse of the fall. The decedent’s wife first learned of the fall from the home care attendant the next day, when her husband seemed weak, and called the managed-care program for assistance. The same nurse returned to the home, examined the patient to rule out an injury, diagnosed tenderness about the rib cage and concerning lung sounds, and summoned an ambulance which transported the decedent to the hospital. The co-defendant home care company settled with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff continued attempting to prosecute the action against our client, the managed-care program. Supported by the affidavit of a geriatric medicine expert, we moved for summary judgment, arguing that the standard of care for a nurse visiting a medical patient at home on a bi-weekly basis did not require the nurse to perform a complete physical exam at the time of each visit, and that none was indicated in the absence of any physical complaints or a report by the patient, family or home care attendant of an accident or injury. We further argued that, although the home care company had initially been selected by the managed-care program, the contract provided that each entity would be liable for its own acts or omissions, and the actual behavior and practice of the two entities in the individual case did not support the plaintiff’s argument that the managed-care program ostensibly oversaw and controlled the duties and performance of the home care attendant. The Court agreed that the standard of care did not require the nurse to have performed a complete physical examination on the day in question, and held that the plaintiff’s expert opinion to the contrary was conclusory and without explanation or support. In its decision, the Court also agreed that the home care company was not the actual or ostensible agent of the managed-care program. Summary judgment was granted to our client and the case was dismissed.