The Court granted summary judgment in its entirety, ruling in favor of the defense and rejecting the plaintiff’s allegations that the facility negligently caused pressure ulcers and failed to implement proper fall precautions. The Court found that the plaintiff’s proposed expert did not possess the qualifications necessary to offer expert testimony in opposition to the defendant’s motion and, therefore, determined that the plaintiff’s submissions were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. As a result of the Court’s decision, all claims asserted against the client were dismissed in full.