Syracuse Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Published on: April 18, 2019

New York Court Discusses Sufficiency of Evidence Needed to Defeat Summary Judgment in a Surgical Malpractice Case

In surgical malpractice cases, there is a shifting burden from the defendant to the plaintiff to provide competent evidence to prove whether there is sufficient evidence to show that the defendant deviated from the accepted standard of care. In most cases, each party will produce an expert affidavit supporting his or her position. A New York appellate court recently discussed what could constitute sufficient evidence to rebut a defendant’s prima facie showing that he did not commit surgical malpractice, in a case in which the defendant sought a dismissal via summary judgment. If you were injured due to a surgical error, you should retain a capable Syracuse surgical malpractice attorney to assist you in your pursuit of compensation from your negligent care providers.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Surgery

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent surgery to extract a stone from his left ureter. The surgery was performed by the defendant and was completed without incident. Approximately one day later, however, the plaintiff returned to the hospital with complaints of pain in his abdomen and an inability to urinate. He underwent a CT scan which revealed a perforation in his bladder. He then underwent a second surgery to repair the perforation. The plaintiff subsequently sued the defendant in a medical malpractice lawsuit. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, to which the plaintiff responded by filing an unsworn expert affidavit. The court subsequently denied the defendant’s motion, after which he appealed.

Elements of Proof in a Medical Malpractice Action

The elements of proof in a medical malpractice action are a deviation from the accepted standard of care, and evidence the deviation proximately caused the plaintiff’s harm. A defendant seeking the dismissal of medical malpractice claims via summary judgment must establish by prima facie evidence that he or she did not depart from the standard of care, or that the departure did not harm the plaintiff. If the defendant makes a sufficient prima facie showing, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show a triable issue of material fact. Further, a court should not grant summary judgment where the parties produce conflicting opinions from medical experts.
Continue reading

Published on: April 18, 2019

Court Discusses what is Discoverable in a New York Medical Malpractice Case

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Physicians must undergo years of specialized schooling before they are permitted to practice medicine. As such, we expect that they should be able to provide acceptable medical care and diagnose and treat any illness in an appropriate time frame. When a patient is harmed due to his or her physician’s failure to treat an illness facts and information regarding the patient’s treatment from the date of the initial visit through the ultimate diagnosis is essential to proving the physician’s delay in diagnosing the plaintiff constitutes malpractice. A New York appellate court recently analyzed what documents the plaintiff is permitted to request while seeking that information, in a case in which the plaintiff alleged he suffered the loss of his leg due to a delayed diagnosis. If you sustained harm because of a delayed diagnosis it is critical to speak with a seasoned Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible to determine your options for seeking compensation.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Treatment

Allegedly, the plaintiff injured his left foot, after which he underwent surgery which was performed by the defendant. The plaintiff then suffered an ischemic injury, which resulted in the swelling, gangrene, and infection, and ultimately the loss of the plaintiff’s leg from the knee down. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging his harm was caused by the defendant’s failure to manage and treat the ischemic injury. During discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel the audit trail of his treatment records, which he argued was relevant to the timing and sequence of his care following his surgery. Specifically, each time the records were accessed an entry was created which included information about the plaintiff’s care. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion, after which the plaintiff appealed.

Discoverable Materials in Medical Malpractice Cases

Under New York law, any information that is material and necessary must be disclosed in a civil action, regardless of the burden of proof. This has been interpreted to mean that any facts that will narrow issues and are relevant to the underlying dispute must be disclosed. As such, necessary means helpful, not indispensable. Further, any information that is sought in good faith that may be used in support of the party’s position in a case is to be considered material. A party seeking materials must show that the request is reasonably calculated to lead to relevant evidence. In the subject case, the court found that the plaintiff met his burden of showing that the audit trail was reasonably likely to lead to relevant evidence. Further, the defendant failed to show the court that the request was improper. Thus, the court reversed the trial court order and granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel.
Continue reading

Published on: April 13, 2019

New York Court Rules Dead Man’s Statute Does Not Preclude Evidence of Written Consent in a Medical Malpractice Case

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Prior to surgery, the physician performing the surgery will typically obtain the patient’s informed consent. The process of obtaining informed consent involves advising the patient of any potential risks to the surgery and asking if the patient understands the risks and consents to the surgery regardless of the risks it presents. A failure to obtain informed consent can form the basis of a surgical malpractice claim if the patient suffers harm as a result of the surgery.

Determining whether valid consent was obtained is a fact-specific analysis. Recently, a New York court evaluated whether the Dead Man’s Statute precluded a deceased patient’s written consent form from evidence in support of the defendant surgeon’s motion for summary judgment. If you suffered harm due to surgical malpractice you should speak with a trusted Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as you can to discuss whether you may be able to recover compensation.

The Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Surgery

Reportedly, the plaintiff’s decedent, who suffered from morbid obesity and sleep apnea, underwent arthroscopic surgery on his knee. The surgery was performed without incident by the defendant surgeon, while the decedent was under general anesthesia administered by the defendant anesthesiologist. Immediately after the surgery, the decedent was unresponsive. He then went into cardiac arrest. The surgical team made efforts to resuscitate the decedent, but they were unsuccessful, and he died.
Continue reading

Published on: April 2, 2019

New York Court Explains Grounds for Late Notice of a Birth Injury Claim Against a Public Corporation

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Many hospitals are not privately owned but are actually public corporations. If a child suffers a birth injury due to medical malpractice at a hospital that is a public corporation, different procedural rules apply for pursuing a claim for damages against the hospital. For example, notice of any claim must be provided within 90 days of when the claim accrues. An appellate division of the Supreme Court of New York recently discussed when a plaintiff will be granted leave to file late notice of a claim, in a case arising from a birth injury. If you live in Syracuse and your child suffered an injury at birth, it is important to speak with a skilled Syracuse birth injury attorney regarding your case as soon as possible.

Reportedly, the plaintiff’s mother presented to the emergency department of the defendant hospital on November 23, 2010. She was 40 weeks and 4 days pregnant at the time, and complained of vaginal leakage, decreased fetal activity, and pain. She was examined and then discharged and sent home. Two days later, the plaintiff was born via an emergency cesarean section at the defendant hospital. The plaintiff was diagnosed with cerebral palsy and brain damage due to perinatal and neonatal asphyxiation.

It is alleged that the plaintiff’s father served the hospital with notice of a claim on August 29, 2013, and the hospital acknowledged receipt of the notice. Then, in March 2014, the plaintiff’s father filed a medical malpractice lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff, alleging that the malpractice of the hospital’s employees caused the plaintiff’s harm. Specifically, it was alleged that the hospital breached the applicable standard of care in discharging the plaintiff’s mother when she first visited the hospital. Further, it was alleged the hospital breached the standard of care in failing to deliver the plaintiff via a cesarean section in a timely manner.

Published on: March 26, 2019

New York Court Explains Standard for Granting a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law in Medical Malpractice Cases

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Surgeons are required to possess the skills and training of other surgeons in their local community. As such, for a plaintiff to recover on a surgical malpractice claim he or she must show, in part, that the defendant surgeon performed the operation in a manner that deviated from the accepted practice in the community. If a surgeon performed a surgery in an accepted manner, a malpractice claim will not lie, even if the manner was not the preferred method. This was illustrated in a recent New York case in which the court affirmed the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, due to a lack of evidence that the defendant deviated from the standard of care. If you were injured due to a negligently performed surgical procedure, you should meet with a skillful Syracuse medical malpractice attorney regarding your case to assess what damages you may be able to recover.

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff underwent a brachioplasty, which was performed by the defendant. A brachioplasty, which is commonly referred to as an arm lift, is a surgical procedure that reshapes a patient’s arms. The plaintiff subsequently filed a surgical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant arguing he negligently performed the surgery thereby causing her harm. The case proceeded to trial, and at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, which the court granted. The plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the court affirmed.

Published on: March 25, 2019

Court Discusses Standard for Granting Extension of Time to Serve New York Medical Malpractice Complaint

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

There are multiple facets that must combine for a plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim to be successful. First, the plaintiff must possess sufficient facts and evidence to show that the defendant medical provider should be held liable for the plaintiff’s alleged harm. Additionally, the plaintiff must comply with the procedural rules that dictate the manner in which a claim is prosecuted. For example, even if a plaintiff can present a strong case against a defendant, if the plaintiff fails to serve the initial pleading in a lawsuit in a timely manner, it may detrimentally affect his or her claim. In some cases, a plaintiff may be granted an extension of time to serve a lawsuit. A New York court recently discussed the standards for determining whether to grant a plaintiff an extension to serve a Complaint in a medical malpractice case. If your medical provider rendered negligence care that caused you to sustain an injury or illness, it is important to retain a knowledgeable Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to assist you in pursuing your claim.

Procedural Background

Reportedly, the plaintiff instituted a medical malpractice action in November 2016 by filing a Complaint. The Complaint set forth allegations that the defendant committed medical malpractice due to the failure to remove broken glass from the plaintiff’s leg. The defendant was reportedly served with the Complaint in December 2016. In February 2017, however, the defendant filed an answer to the Complaint and set forth the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff then moved for an extension of time to serve the defendant with a Complaint. The defendant filed a counter motion to dismiss the Complaint due to lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion and denied the defendant’s motion, after which the defendant appealed.

Published on: March 19, 2019

New York Court Discusses Standard for Granting Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Cases

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In medical malpractice cases, the burden shifts from the plaintiff, who must set forth evidence of the defendant’s malpractice, to the defendant, who must set forth evidence that he or she comported with the standard of care. When there is conflicting evidence the issue of whether the defendant committed malpractice is typically presented to a jury. In some cases, however, the evidence allows the court to find in favor of one party prior to a trial.

A New York appellate court recently discussed the standards for granting a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case in which the court affirmed judgment in favor of the defendant. If you suffered harm because of a medical practitioner’s negligent failure to conduct necessary tests or diagnose an illness in a timely manner to ensure medical treatment, you should speak with a skilled Syracuse medical malpractice attorney regarding whether you may be able to recover damages for your harm.

The Decedent’s Treatment and Subsequent Death

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s decedent was a resident in a nursing home owned by the defendant for approximately fifteen months prior to her death in January 2012. The decedent suffered from several chronic health conditions, but her immediate cause of death was indicated as cardiopulmonary arrest caused by heart disease and atherosclerosis. Following an autopsy, the decedent’s final cause of death was determined to be aspiration pneumonia. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant alleging, in part, medical malpractice. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant committed malpractice by failing to diagnose the decedent’s dysphagia, and failing to prevent or treat the decedent’s aspiration pneumonia. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted. The plaintiff subsequently appealed.

Published on: March 12, 2019

New York Court Dismisses Medical Malpractice Case for Plaintiff’s Failure to Participate in Discovery

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In medical malpractice cases, a plaintiff’s right to recover damages depends on both the factual evidence in support of his or her claim and whether he or she complies with the procedural requirements set forth under the law. Even if a plaintiff has clear evidence of malpractice, he or she may be precluded from recovering from the defendant if he or she refuses to comply with the obligations imposed by the law.

This was evidenced in a recent case in which the appellate division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s case due to a willful refusal to participate in discovery. If you or a loved one suffered damages due to medical treatment that fell below the standard of care, you should speak with a knowledgeable Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible to analyze the circumstances that brought about your harm and your options for pursuing compensation.

Facts Regarding the Decedent’s Treatment

Reportedly, in 2007, the plaintiff took her grandson to the emergency department of the defendant hospital for treatment. The child was examined and discharged that day. He passed away at home five days after his visit to the defendant hospital. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant hospital in 2009. Subsequently, in 2015, the defendant filed a demand for the plaintiff to prosecute the case, pursuant to the New York statute imposing penalties for the failure to disclose information. The plaintiff then filed a motion for an extension of time to file a note of issue. The court granted the motion but ordered the plaintiff to appear for a deposition on or before May 27, 2016. The plaintiff failed to appear for a deposition, and in July 2016 the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. The court granted the motion, after which the plaintiff appealed.

Published on: March 1, 2019

Court Holds Continuing to Treat Despite Cognitive Decline May Constitute Medical Malpractice in New York Case

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Negligent medical care is not limited to missed diagnoses or negligently performed surgeries but can present in a variety of ways. At the heart of each medical malpractice claim, however, is the allegation that the defendant medical care provider departed from the accepted standard of care.

Recently, a New York court addressed the novel issue of whether a defendant doctor deviated from the accepted standard of care by continuing to practice medicine despite his cognitive decline. If you sustained injuries due to inadequate or inappropriate medical care, you should consult a seasoned Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to discuss the facts of your case and whether you may be able to pursue damages.

The Defendant’s Treatment of Plaintiff

Allegedly, the plaintiff, who is intellectually disabled, visited the defendant doctor to obtain results of blood and urine tests. While the plaintiff was in the examining room, the defendant doctor exposed himself and committed a sexual act in front of the plaintiff. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant doctor and his practice alleging, among other claims, medical malpractice. Following a trial, a jury found that the defendant doctor departed from the accepted standard of care due to the fact that he continued to practice medicine despite his cognitive disability. The defendant doctor appealed, arguing that his actions did not constitute “medical treatment” because they were not related to the essential elements of diagnosis and treatment.

Published on: February 28, 2019

New York Court Rules the Failure to Provide an Expert Affirmation is Fatal to a Plaintiff’s Medical Malpractice Claim

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In the vast majority of medical malpractice cases, a plaintiff will need an expert to prove that the treatment provided by the defendant deviated from the standard of care. It is especially important to provide an expert affirmation in cases where the defendant has retained an expert.

When a plaintiff does not retain an expert it can result in the dismissal of the case, as illustrated in a recent case decided by The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division. If you suffered harm due to negligent medical care, it is essential to retain a capable Syracuse medical malpractice attorney who will work diligently to help you develop a strong case in favor of your recovery, and will retain an expert if it is necessary.

Factual and Procedural Background

Reportedly, the plaintiff treated the defendant for an ear infection. She subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that the defendant’s improper instructions regarding prescription administration and an inappropriate prescription caused her to suffer hearing loss, tinnitus, and perforation of the tympanic membrane. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. The plaintiff then filed a motion for leave to amend her opposition to the defendant’s motion, which the court denied. The plaintiff appealed.