In a medical malpractice and wrongful death action involving the alleged failure to diagnose viral myocarditis in a 31-year-old, married woman with two young children, the plaintiff alleged that our clients, the cardiologists, had negligently failed to appreciate the results of his wife’s EKG and echocardiogram obtained during her second month of pregnancy with their second child, resulting in her sudden death from cardiac arrest about eight weeks after she delivered her full-term infant. The co-defendant obstetricians mainly defended their care and treatment on the theory that they had relied on our cardiologists to rule out any threatening cardiac diseases or conditions, and the co-defendant hospital mainly defended itself on the theory that its staff had merely followed the orders and instructions of the co-defendant obstetricians. We moved for summary judgment on behalf of the cardiologists. The plaintiff opposed the summary judgment motion with an affidavit from an expert pathologist who offered opinions in Cardiology and Obstetrics, asserting that he was suitably qualified to opine in those fields based upon aspects of his particular training and experience in Pathology and Medicine. We replied both to the substantive, medical arguments and by asserting that the pathology expert had failed to demonstrate his own medical competency to offer the opinions submitted. We won on both fronts. First, the judge held a rare expert competency hearing in which we were given the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff’s expert, under oath, on his competency in the areas of Cardiology and Obstetrics. After the hearing, the court held that the plaintiff’s expert was not sufficiently qualified to render opinions in regard to most of the Cardiology and Obstetrics issues in controversy, and went on to decide the summary judgment motion, on its merits, in favor of the defendants. The action was dismissed. On the plaintiff’s appeal, which we defended for our clients, the First Department affirmed the dismissal.