Serving Clients Throughout Upstate New York with Multiple Convenient Locations Syracuse | Oneida | Watertown | New Hartford | Binghamton | Cortland | Rochester | Oswego | Albany | Buffalo

While it is not uncommon for people in nursing home facilities to suffer harm due to incompetent medical care, it is rare for the parties responsible for causing such injuries to admit fault. As such, a plaintiff pursuing medical malpractice claims against such entities will typically need to retain an expert to explain the standard of care and the manner in which the defendant breached the standard. While only certain people are qualified to testify as experts, that does not necessarily mean that people outside of the defendant’s practice area lack the knowledge needed to offer an expert opinion, as demonstrated in a recent New York ruling. If you sustained injuries due to medical negligence, it is wise to confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer about your rights.

Procedural and Factual History

It is alleged that the decedent, who was a resident at the defendant’s nursing home, fell and suffered injuries. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging both medical malpractice and ordinary negligence. Among other things, the plaintiff argued that the defendant failed to adhere to the standard of care required for high-risk elderly patients with dementia.

It is reported that the defendant moved for summary judgment, presenting an affirmation from a medical doctor specializing in geriatric medicine, asserting that the defendant complied with the applicable standard of care. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims by categorizing them as solely medical malpractice claims, and disregarded the plaintiff’s nursing expert’s opinion due to the fact that she was not a medical doctor. The plaintiff appealed the judgment and the order. Continue Reading ›

People who suffer losses following incompetent medical care will often seek damages from their healthcare providers. In order to recover compensation, though, they must establish proximate cause, which means that they must connect the inadequate care in question to their ultimate harm. In a recent new York medical malpractice opinion, the court discussed what evidence is needed to meet this burden of proof. If you were hurt by a careless doctor, you may be owed damages, and you should talk to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer.

Factual and Procedural History

It is alleged that the plaintiff initiated a medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit against the defendant physician, among others, alleging negligence in the treatment of the decedent, who died by suicide. The defendant had treated the decedent in the days and weeks preceding the death, including an office visit on the day of the death. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant deviated from the standard of care by not referring the decedent to the emergency room the day before their death.

Reportedly, a jury found the defendant’s actions were a substantial factor in causing the death and awarded the plaintiff almost $10 million in damages. The defendant then filed a motion to set aside the verdict on the grounds of both the departure from the standard of care and proximate cause, seeking judgment as a matter of law to dismiss the complaint against him. Alternatively, the defendant requested a new trial on liability and damages. The trial court granted the motion concerning proximate cause, concluding that the evidence did not sufficiently establish a link between the defendant’s actions and the death, and dismissed the complaint against the defendant. The plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

Surgical procedures can offer relief for many chronic and acute conditions. If a doctor does not exercise due care when performing a surgery, though, they may inadvertently cause a patient harm, and may be liable for medical malpractice. In some cases, the hospital or healthcare system that employs the doctor may be responsible as well. As discussed in a recent New York opinion delivered in a medical malpractice case, plaintiffs are generally permitted to pursue discovery of a  hospital system’s procedures for vetting doctors that harm patients, as it may be critical to their claims. If you were harmed by a reckless physician, it is wise to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your rights.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action alleging that the defendant surgeon negligently performed a laparoscopic surgery that resulted in perforation of the decedent’s bowel. The surgery occurred at a hospital that was part of the healthcare network of the defendant’s healthcare system. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s healthcare system failed to establish reasonable procedures for reviewing the defendant’s surgeon’s qualifications before granting him privileges to perform surgeries.

Allegedly, The plaintiff and the decedent, before her passing, moved to compel Kaleida Health to produce a representative knowledgeable about prior incidents involving injuries to patients from surgeries performed by the defendant surgeon. Defendants cross-moved for a protective order. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion and the defendants appealed. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice cases typically involve disputes over whether a healthcare provider caused their patients harm. In most cases, both parties will provide expert reports in support of their positions. If a court finds that both parties’ experts offered sound opinions based on facts of record, it is unlikely that the courts will find that one party should prevail, as a matter of law. This was demonstrated in a recent New York medical malpractice ruling, in which the court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. If you have questions about whether you may be able to recover compensation in a lawsuit against a doctor who caused you harm, you should talk to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant’s doctors performed a knee replacement surgery and a subsequent skin graft procedure on the plaintiff. The plaintiff experienced complications following the procedures and filed medical malpractice claims against the defendants. The defendants then moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish the defendants were negligent and such negligence caused her harm. The court denied the defendants’ motion, however, after which the defendants appealed.

Demonstrating Factual Disputes in Medical Malpractice Cases

Upon review, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court, while acknowledging the defendants’ prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, found that the plaintiff’s experts raised genuine issues of fact regarding the defendants’ alleged negligence. Continue Reading ›

People pursuing medical malpractice claims in New York will typically wish to have their case tried before a jury. While the expectation is that jurors will issue a fair verdict based on the evidence, that is not always the case. Parties can appeal jury verdicts, but they can be difficult to overturn, as demonstrated in a recent New York ruling issued in a medical malpractice case. If you want to learn more about your rights with regard to pursuing claims against negligent healthcare providers, it is in your best interest to consult a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer.

Case Background

It is alleged that the plaintiff was admitted to a medical center for treatment of gastrointestinal conditions in January 2005. During her admission, she experienced hallucinations. Subsequently, two psychiatrists recommended her involuntary psychiatric hospitalization and the medical center initiated the process. However, the plaintiff was transferred to the defendant medical center the following day for psychiatric care as an involuntary patient.

It is reported that despite being assessed by a psychiatric nurse upon arrival, the plaintiff was not examined by a psychiatrist until approximately 21 hours later. In 2007, the plaintiff initiated a medical malpractice action against the defendant medical center, alleging improper admission and treatment. The case proceeded to a jury trial, focusing solely on the cause of action for medical malpractice. The plaintiff moved for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, contending that the defendant medical center failed to comply with the requirements of Mental Hygiene Law § 9.27. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant on the issue of liability, prompting the plaintiff’s appeal. Continue Reading ›

People hospitalized with significant health concerns will often be discharged to skilled nursing facilities to recuperate until they are well enough to return home. Sadly, rather than getting well, some people suffer critical harm. Such injuries do not always mean that they are the victims of medical malpractice, though, as demonstrated in a recent New York case in which the court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a material issue of fact existed with regard to the defendants’ medical negligence. If you want to learn more about your options for seeking compensation against healthcare providers that caused you or a loved one harm, it is prudent to talk to a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney.

History of the Cases

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s father was admitted to a skilled nursing facility operated by the defendant in July 2009 and received treatment from the defendant attending physician, and the defendant podiatrist, among others. After being diagnosed with a right heel blister in June 2010, which developed into a severe pressure ulcer, the father was transferred to a hospital for further evaluation and treatment. Subsequently, his right leg was partially amputated.

Reportedly, the plaintiff, acting as the decedent’s personal guardian, initiated the action against the defendants, seeking damages for medical malpractice. After the decedent’s death, the plaintiff was appointed as the administrator of his estate and continued the lawsuit. The defendants individually moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. The plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice cases are complicated, and most people harmed by medical incompetence who wish to pursue claims against their healthcare providers would benefit from the assistance of a skilled attorney. Regardless, for various reasons, some people choose to proceed pro se. Doing so frequently results in the dismissal of their claims. Recently, a New York court discussed the liberal interpretation standards applied to pro se complaints in a case where it ultimately dismissed the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims. If you intend to pursue claims against your treatment providers, it is wise to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to discuss your options.

Case Setting

It is alleged that the plaintiff, without the assistance of an attorney, initiated legal action against the defendant doctors, medical centers, and other entities. The complaint set forth medical malpractice and civil rights violations related to surgeries the plaintiff received in 2008 and 2020. After granting the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, the court dismissed most of his claims but allowed him to amend his claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).

It is reported that the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding additional defendants and allegations. The court dismissed various claims with prejudice, including those related to negligence, medical malpractice, Section 1983 claims, and Privacy Act claims, among others. The plaintiff was given leave to amend his RICO claims but ultimately did not assert any in the amended complaint. Instead, he included new claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA“), alleging negligence and wrongful acts by federal government employees. The court then reviewed the complaint for sufficiency. Continue Reading ›

Doctors accused of medical malpractice will rarely admit fault. In fact, in many cases, they will move to dismiss the claims against them in their entirety. A plaintiff in a medical malpractice case can defeat such motions by demonstrating via expert evidence that a factual dispute exists as to whether the defendant caused the plaintiff’s harm. Courts do not always assess such evidence properly, however, and may unjustly dismiss a plaintiff’s claim regardless of the evidentiary support. As demonstrated in a recent New York case, though, such decisions may be reversible. If you were hurt by inadequate medical care, it is advisable to talk to a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Setting of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, a child suffering from cerebral palsy, underwent surgery on both legs, including hamstring lengthening. The procedure was performed by the defendants, two orthopedic surgeons. Following the surgery, the plaintiff experienced postoperative complications, including bilateral weakness and sensory loss in the lower extremities. Subsequent examinations revealed a nerve stretch injury that caused the plaintiff to have significant difficulties walking. As such, the plaintiff initiated a medical malpractice action against the defendants, alleging negligence in performing the surgery and failing to timely diagnose the nerve stretch injury.

Allegedly, the defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims. In support of their motion, the defendants offered an expert affidavit and medical records. The plaintiff opposed the motion, presenting a redacted affidavit from another expert physician. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion. The plaintiff then appealed. Continue Reading ›

People who witness others experiencing serious health issues will often call 911, after which an emergency response team will typically respond. Unfortunately, EMS teams are not always able to provide people in critical condition with the care that they need, and in some instances, people succumb to their illnesses. The evidence needed to establish an EMS team’s fault for a patient’s death depends, in part, on whether their actions constituted mere negligence or medical malpractice, as demonstrated in a recent New York opinion. If you or a loved one suffered harm due to the carelessness of an emergency care provider, it is wise to talk to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer about your possible claims.

Case Background

It is reported that the decedent, a registrant at the defendant’s adult day health facility, began choking during lunch. The defendant’s employee, a registered nurse, responded to an intercom announcement and found the decedent pale and showing signs of choking. Despite efforts to help her, the decedent lost consciousness, which prompted a 911 call. The defendant emergency medical services (EMS) team arrived at the scene, provided treatment, and transported the decedent to the hospital, where she was pronounced dead.

Allegedly, the plaintiff filed an action against the defendants to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death. The defendant EMS team sought summary judgment, arguing that it did not depart from accepted medical standards and that its actions were not the proximate cause of the decedent’s death. Continue Reading ›

Sadly, it is not uncommon for doctors and medical facilities to make mistakes when treating patients suffering from critical health concerns. Even if a provider makes a mistake, however, they will most likely not be deemed liable for medical malpractice unless their patient can establish that the error in question proximately caused them to suffer harm. This was demonstrated in a recent New York medical malpractice case in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against a medical facility. If you were injured by an improperly performed procedure, it is advisable to confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent heart surgery and the installation of a catheter that was performed by the defendant doctor at the defendant medical facility. The plaintiff subsequently suffered complications, after which he filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants. In sum, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants delayed in performing the surgery and that the surgery was negligently performed.

It is alleged that the defendant medical center moved for dismissal via summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to establish proximate cause. The trial court denied the defendant medical center’s motion initially, after which the defendant filed a motion for reargument. Following the second hearing, however, the court upheld its original ruling. The defendant appealed. Continue Reading ›

Super Lawyers
Justia Lawyer Rating
Rue Ratings - Best Attorneys of America
Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
National Association of Distinguished Counsel
Avvo Rating
Martindalle Hubbel
Best Law Firms
Contact Information