Serving Clients Throughout Upstate New York with Multiple Convenient Locations
Published on:

All New York motorists have an obligation to abide by vehicle and traffic laws. Among other things, this includes the duty to yield to other motorists who have the right of way. If a driver fails to abide by a traffic law and subsequently causes a collision, they may be deemed negligent as a matter of law, as shown in a recent opinion issued in a New York car accident case. If you were hurt in a collision, it is wise to talk to a Syracuse personal injury lawyer about your possible causes of action.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was driving his motorcycle on a New York road when he approached an intersection. He observed that the traffic light he was approaching was green, and he did not see any cars in front of him. After he entered the intersection, he noticed the defendant driver begin to make a left-hand turn in front of him. Due to the abruptness of the turn, he did not have time to stop or divert his motorcycle to avoid colliding with the defendant.

Reportedly, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, seeking compensation for the injuries he sustained in the accident. Before depositions were taken or discovery was complete, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to rule in his favor on the issue of liability and seeking a dismissal of the defendant’s affirmative defense of comparative negligence. In support of his motion, he provided the police accident report and his affidavit. The trial court denied his motion, and he appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

Under New York law, podiatrists, like all medical professionals, have an obligation to treat their patients in a manner that complies with the accepted and good practice of medicine. If they fail to negligently perform their duties, thereby causing their patients harm, they may be liable for medical malpractice. Recently, a New York court explained what a plaintiff must prove to recover damages in a medical malpractice case against a podiatrist in a matter in which the defendant caused fatal harm. If you or a loved one sustained injuries because of the carelessness of a podiatrist, you should meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to assess whether you may be owed damages.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent, who was 81 years old and suffered from numerous chronic health concerns, visited the defendant podiatrist for treatment of a burn on the top of his right foot. The defendant examined the decedent’s foot and noted that while he had areas of raw skin and blisters, there were no signs of cellulitis or infection. The defendant diagnosed the decedent with a second-degree burn, cleaned and dressed his wound, and instructed him on wound care.

Reportedly, the decedent had a follow-up visit with the defendant six and then eleven days later, during which the defendant again noted no signs of infection or cellulitis. A month and a half later, the decedent was admitted to the hospital, where he underwent an amputation of his right foot. Two months later, he died due to cardiac arrest. The plaintiff instituted medical malpractice and wrongful death claims against the defendant, who moved for summary judgment following discovery. The court denied the defendant’s motion, and she appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

It is not uncommon for people seeking damages for medical malpractice to assert other claims in the same case. If such claims arise out of alleged violations of federal law, they may file their lawsuit in federal court. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, but they can preside over medical malpractice claims asserted in the same case as federal question claims. If the federal question claims are dismissed, though, it will most likely result in the dismissal of the entire case, as explained in a recent opinion issued by a New York court. If you sustained losses due to the carelessness of a medical professional, you have the right to seek compensation, and you should meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your possible claims.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff has been in the custody of the state since 2009. Throughout his stay, he underwent regular testing, including prostate specific antigen screenings. The plaintiff began to experience urinary issues, which he reported to the medical professionals at the facilities he was housed in on various occasions from 2013 to 2018, for which he was prescribed medication.

Reportedly, the plaintiff was ultimately diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2020. He subsequently filed a lawsuit naming the parties who provided him medical care over the years as defendants and asserting claims that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his Eight Amendment rights and that they committed medical malpractice. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims on the grounds that he failed to state claims under which relief could be granted. Continue reading

Published on:

There are few things as tragic as the loss of an infant. When a baby’s death is caused by avoidable medical errors, though, it can be all the more traumatic. Doctors that cause fatal birth injuries can be held accountable for any damages they cause, but they will often try to avoid liability. For example, in a recent New York opinion, doctors argued that the plaintiff should not be awarded damages for emotional distress because her child was born alive. If you suffered the loss of a baby due to the reckless acts of a physician, it is wise to confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to discuss what evidence you must offer to demonstrate fault.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the plaintiff went to the hospital to deliver her child and was cared for by the defendant doctors during labor and delivery. The plaintiff ultimately underwent a c-section. The medical records indicated that the infant was floppy and had no heart rate or spontaneous respiration after he was removed from her womb.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants alleging, among other things, that their medical malpractice caused her to deliver a stillborn baby, thereby causing her emotional distress. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claims premised on her emotional distress, arguing that she could not recover for emotional distress because the child was born alive. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

The majority of medical malpractice cases filed in New York never reach trial. While most cases that resolve before trial are settled, others are dismissed via summary judgment. It is difficult for either party to obtain judgment in their favor as a matter of law, though, as demonstrated in a recent New York ruling in which the court reversed a trial court order dismissing the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant. If you suffered harm due to the carelessness of a physician, you have the right to seek compensation, and you should speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer about what evidence you must produce to recover damages.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant treated the plaintiff for unspecified injuries. The plaintiff suffered a stroke shortly thereafter. He then filed a medical malpractice case against the defendant, alleging that he failed to take the steps necessary to prevent him from having a stroke, including administering certain medication. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to show that he deviated from the standard of care. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Obtaining Summary Judgment in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

On appeal, the trial court ruling was reversed. The court explained that on a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case, the defendant has the burden of proving they did not depart from the accepted and good practice of medicine or that if they did, any such departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s harm. Continue reading

Published on:

While people harmed by inadequate medical care have the right to pursue claims against their providers, the right is not boundless. Instead, they must file a medical malpractice lawsuit within the time proscribed by law; if they file a claim outside of the statute of limitations, it will likely be dismissed. In a recent opinion delivered by a New York court in a medical malpractice case, the court discussed the evidence considered in determining if an action is time-barred. If you were hurt by medical oversights and you have questions about your potential claims, it is prudent to confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer.

The History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff treated with the defendant from 2009 through 2013. During that time, the defendant provided the plaintiff with treatment for perimenopausal and postmenopausal symptoms. In 2014, ten months after the plaintiff’s last visit with the defendant, she treated with another physician who diagnosed her with osteopenia and osteoporosis. In 2015 plaintiff subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, arguing he negligently failed to diagnose and treat her osteoporosis in a timely manner. The defendant moved to have the plaintiff’s claims dismissed as time-barred. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Evidence Considered in Determining if an Action is Time-Barred

In a motion to dismiss a cause of action as prohibited by the applicable statute of limitations, a defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the time period within which the plaintiff needed to file their claims has expired. If the defendant meets this burden, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff, who must raise an issue of fact as to whether the statute of limitations is inapplicable or was tolled. Continue reading

Published on:

Many doctors and medical facilities ask patients to sign consent forms prior to rendering treatment. Such forms usually grant permission to perform certain services and cover the risks associated with such care. In some instances, though, they may contain other provisions, such as a waiver of certain rights with regard to medical malpractice claims. Such terms may violate public policy, however, and therefore the courts may decline to enforce them, as shown in a recent New York ruling. If you were injured by a negligently performed procedure and have questions about your rights, it is smart to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is alleged that the plaintiff presented to the defendant with complaints of back pain, rashes, swelling, and other symptoms that were ultimately determined to be caused by a contraceptive device that had been inserted in her fallopian tube. The defendant advised the plaintiff that she needed to undergo a hysterectomy to remove the device.

It is reported that the patient decided to undergo a hysterectomy. Prior to the procedure, the defendant’s staff presented her with numerous forms she was asked to complete and sign. Among other things, the forms included an agreement that stated that if she pursued a medical malpractice case against the defendant, she would only hire certain witnesses and that such witnesses would be subject to deposition at least 120 days before trial. Continue reading

Published on:

Car accidents occur regularly in Syracuse, and they are typically brought about by negligent driving. Fortunately, people hurt in collisions can recover compensation via personal injury cases if they establish liability. In most cases, the issue of liability must be decided by a jury. In some instances, though, a court will find the evidence of the defendant’s fault to be so compelling that it will issue a judgment in favor of the plaintiff as a matter of law. Recently, in an opinion issued in a New York car accident case, a court discussed what a plaintiff must prove to obtain summary judgment in their favor. If you were injured in a car crash caused by a reckless driver, you might be owed damages, and you should meet with a Syracuse personal injury lawyer about your potential claims.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was stopped at a red light in his car when he was struck from behind by a bus operated by the defendant driver and owned by the defendant transit authority. The plaintiff suffered bodily harm and property damage in the collision and subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit asserting negligence claims against the defendants. Following the completion of discovery, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The court granted judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

Obtaining Summary Judgment in a Car Accident Case

On appeal, the trial court ruling was upheld. The court explained that under New York law, a rear-end crash involving a stopped establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the second driver. As such, the second driver must rebut the inference of negligence by offering a non-negligent explanation for the collision. Continue reading

Published on:

New York’s traffic laws are designed to minimize the risk of collisions by dictating when motorists must stop or yield to other drivers. Generally, if a driver traveling with the right of way is struck by another motorist, they will not be found at fault for the collision. There are exceptions to the general rule, though, as discussed in a recent ruling issued in a New York personal injury lawsuit. If you were hurt in a collision, you might be able to recover compensation, and you should speak to a Syracuse personal injury lawyer about your possible claims.

The Subject Accident

It is alleged that the plaintiff and the defendants were involved in a three-car collision. Specifically, the first defendant was operating a vehicle that collided with a car driven by the second defendant, which then crashed into a car driven by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, who suffered injuries in the accident, commenced a personal injury lawsuit against the defendants. After discovery ended, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were not at fault for the accident. The court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed.

Fault for a Failure to Yield Accident

In a car crash case, a defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of proving, prima facie, that they were not at fault for the subject collision. Accidents can have more than one proximate cause, and, generally, it is for the trier of fact to resolve the issue of proximate cause. Continue reading

Published on:

For many medical issues, a prompt diagnosis is essential to a good outcome. As such, a patient that suffers harm due to a delayed diagnosis may be able to recover damages in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Merely demonstrating that a diagnosis was delayed is not sufficient to establish liability, though, as a patient must also show that the delays caused actual damages, as discussed in an opinion recently issued in a New York medical malpractice lawsuit. If you suffered harm due to diagnostic delays, it is advisable to confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer as soon as you can.

The Facts of the Case

Reportedly, the plaintiff received an epidural when he was admitted to a hospital for a procedure. He subsequently developed an epidural abscess that ultimately left him partially paralyzed. He then brought medical malpractice claims against the defendants, the doctors who cared for him during his admission, alleging that their failure to diagnose the abscess that led to his harm promptly. The defendants moved for summary judgment, but their motion was denied. They then appealed.

Establishing Liability for a Delayed Diagnosis

The court reversed the trial court ruling on appeal and dismissed the claims against the defendant. In New York, a defendant moving for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case initially bears the burden of demonstrating either that there was no departure from the applicable standard of care or that any such departure was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s losses. Continue reading

Justia Lawyer Rating
Contact Information