Syracuse Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Medical malpractice cases often involve conflicting medical evidence that juries must carefully evaluate before reaching a verdict. Because jurors are responsible for resolving disputed factual issues, trial courts must ensure they have meaningful access to the evidence admitted during trial and provide appropriate guidance during deliberations. A recent New York opinion demonstrates that even when a jury’s factual findings are supported by the evidence, significant errors during deliberations may still require a new trial. If you or a loved one suffered injuries because of negligent medical care, you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to learn how procedural errors can affect the outcome of a medical malpractice case.

Factual and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice action against several healthcare providers, asserting that they failed to timely diagnose and treat an infant’s arachnoid cyst and failed to refer the child to a neurologist or neurosurgeon. The plaintiffs contended that these departures from accepted medical practice delayed appropriate treatment and ultimately caused the child to sustain permanent brain injuries.

Reportedly, following a jury trial, the jury determined that two of the defendants did not depart from accepted standards of medical care. The jury further found that another healthcare provider departed from the applicable standard of care by failing to make an appropriate specialist referral during one office visit, but concluded that the departure was not a substantial factor in causing the child’s injuries. The plaintiffs moved to set aside portions of the verdict and to request a new trial, arguing that errors during the trial prevented the jury from fairly considering the evidence. After the trial court denied that request, the plaintiffs appealed. Continue Reading ›

Patients trust their healthcare providers to recognize warning signs of serious illnesses and promptly order appropriate testing or referrals. When a diagnosis is delayed, however, proving that the delay actually changed the patient’s outcome often becomes one of the most heavily contested issues in a medical malpractice lawsuit. A recent New York ruling highlights why detailed and well-supported expert testimony is essential for establishing both negligence and causation in delayed-diagnosis cases. If you believe a delayed diagnosis caused you or a loved one to suffer unnecessary harm, you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to discuss your legal rights and potential remedies.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action against several healthcare providers, asserting that they failed to diagnose and treat multiple myeloma in a timely manner. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants departed from accepted medical practice by failing to recognize signs of the disease and that the delayed diagnosis caused significant injuries. During the litigation, the original plaintiff filed for bankruptcy, and the trustee of the bankruptcy estate was substituted as the plaintiff in the action.

Reportedly, after discovery concluded, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that their medical care complied with accepted standards of practice and that any alleged diagnostic delay did not cause the plaintiff’s injuries or alter the patient’s prognosis. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the claims against the moving defendants. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that disputed issues of fact required the case to proceed to trial. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice lawsuits are governed by strict procedural rules, and failing to comply with court orders can have serious consequences regardless of the merits of a claim. Courts expect litigants and their attorneys to actively prosecute their cases and attend scheduled conferences throughout the litigation process. A recent New York opinion demonstrates the challenges plaintiffs face in reviving a medical malpractice action after it has been dismissed for failure to appear in court. If you were harmed by negligent medical treatment, it is important to protect your rights from the outset, and you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action in April 2021 arising out of physical therapy treatment provided by the defendants. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants’ care caused her injuries and sought damages through a civil lawsuit.

Reportedly, the litigation proceeded until a court-ordered conference scheduled for September 2022. Neither party appeared for the conference, and the court therefore directed that the action be dismissed without prejudice. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice litigation often evolves as expert review and discovery reveal additional information about the nature and extent of a patient’s injuries. As a result, disputes frequently arise over whether a plaintiff should be permitted to amend pleadings or bills of particulars to more accurately reflect the evidence developed during litigation. A recent New York decision illustrates the circumstances under which courts may allow such amendments and highlights the importance of demonstrating prejudice when opposing a request to conform pleadings to the proof. If you suffered injuries due to negligent medical treatment, it is important to understand your legal rights, and you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims.

Factual and Procedural Background

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action arising out of eye surgery performed by the defendant physician. The plaintiff contended that a phacoemulsification procedure caused numerous complications, including blurry vision, eye pain, headaches, double vision, visual distortion between the eyes, instability while walking, and the need for additional corrective surgery. The plaintiff maintained that these injuries resulted directly from negligent medical treatment.

Reportedly, the parties engaged in discovery, and the defendants later moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the action. The plaintiff successfully opposed those motions, and the court determined that material questions of fact existed regarding the treatment provided and the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice claims involving emergency care and patient transfers often raise complex questions about decision-making authority, applicable protocols, and whether healthcare providers followed accepted standards under rapidly evolving circumstances. Courts must carefully evaluate expert testimony to determine whether alleged deviations are supported by recognized medical standards or are merely speculative assertions. A recent New York appellate ruling highlights how unsupported expert opinions can undermine a malpractice claim and lead to dismissal before trial. If you or a loved one suffered harm during a hospital stay, it is wise to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action on behalf of a patient, asserting that the defendants failed to provide appropriate care during a hospital transfer, resulting in injury.

It is alleged that the patient was under medical care at a hospital and later transferred to another institution for further treatment, and that the plaintiff claims the defendants deviated from accepted standards during the transfer. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice cases often involve not only questions of negligent care but also strict procedural requirements that can determine whether a case proceeds at all. When a patient alleges a failure to diagnose a serious condition, courts must carefully evaluate both the timeline of treatment and whether the claim was timely filed under applicable laws. A recent New York decision demonstrates how defendants must provide clear evidentiary support when seeking dismissal on procedural grounds, particularly in cases involving ongoing medical treatment. If you or a loved one suffered harm due to a delayed diagnosis, taking prompt legal action is essential, and you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible to protect your rights.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action seeking damages for failure to timely diagnose and treat a serious medical condition, asserting that the defendants’ care resulted in advanced illness and significant harm.

It is alleged that the plaintiff was a long-term patient of the defendant hospital system and ultimately learned of a severe diagnosis after an extended period of treatment, which she claims should have been identified earlier through proper medical care. Continue Reading ›

Procedural requirements often play a critical role in medical malpractice litigation, particularly those designed to screen out unsupported claims at an early stage. One such requirement is the certificate of merit, which confirms that counsel has consulted with a qualified medical professional before commencing suit. However, courts must also balance strict compliance with fairness and the underlying purpose of the statute. A recent New York decision highlights how courts address noncompliance with this requirement and when dismissal is not the appropriate remedy. If you are interested in pursuing a malpractice claim, it is advisable to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney who can help ensure that your rights are protected.

Procedural Setting and Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice action asserting departures from accepted medical practice and lack of informed consent against multiple physician defendants and a medical institution.

It is alleged that the plaintiffs failed to file and serve a certificate of merit with the complaint, as required by statute in medical malpractice actions. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice claims do not succeed on substantive allegations alone. Procedural compliance, particularly following the death of a party, plays a critical role in determining whether a claim may proceed at all. Courts strictly enforce rules governing substitution of parties and timeliness, and failure to act diligently can result in dismissal regardless of the underlying merits. A recent New York decision highlights how delays, insufficient expert support, and procedural missteps can derail a malpractice claim before it ever reaches trial. If you are considering pursuing a medical negligence claim, you should consult a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to discuss the substantive and procedural requirements of your case.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the claimant commenced an action seeking damages for medical malpractice arising from care rendered to a decedent at a state-operated medical facility.  Shortly after initiating the claim, the claimant died, and an executor was appointed to represent the estate, necessitating the substitution of a proper party to continue the litigation.

Reportedly, the court issued an order dismissing the claim after counsel failed to appear at multiple scheduled conferences, leaving the action in a procedurally vulnerable posture. More than two years after the claimant’s death, the executor moved to vacate the dismissal, lift the stay imposed due to the death, and substitute as the claimant, while the defendant cross-moved to dismiss based on failure to timely substitute. The trial court denied the executor’s motion and granted the defendant’s cross-motion, prompting an appeal challenging those determinations. Continue Reading ›