Syracuse Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Published on: March 14, 2023

Failing to Diagnose Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) May Give Rise to a Malpractice Claim

The majority of patients trust their doctors to correctly diagnose their medical conditions and provide adequate treatment. Unfortunately, in some cases, medical professionals fail to properly diagnose a medical condition. One medical condition that is often misdiagnosed is deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a condition that occurs when a blood clot forms within a deep vein of the arms, pelvis, or legs. Sometimes these clots move through the bloodstream and become lodged in an artery in the lung, blocking the blood flow in what is known as a pulmonary embolism. Certain individuals are at greater risk of suffering from a DVT including people who are obese, smokers, patients who have had recent surgery, advanced age, kidney problems, pregnancy, or those who are immobile for a long period. If your doctor failed to diagnose or treat your deep vein thrombosis, you should discuss your situation with the experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys of DeFrancisco & Falgiatano.

Internal blood clots can form for many different reasons. In addition to the above referred potential risks, a genetic autoimmune disorder called an antiphospholipid syndrome, or sticky blood, causes the body to attack otherwise beneficial or benign proteins in the body, causing blood clots to form. Regardless of the cause of the clot, it can be potentially dangerous. If a clot travels to the heart or lungs, it can cause breathing problems or even a heart attack. If it travels to the brain, it can cause a stroke. Particularly dangerous blood clots can be treated quickly with surgery, but a doctor must catch the clot in time.

Tests used to diagnose or rule out DVT include:

Published on: December 23, 2022

Court Examines Grounds for Setting Aside a Jury’s Verdict in a New York Personal Injury Case

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Typically, parties in a personal injury case will rely on jurors to assess the evidence presented and determine issues of fault and damages. Although jurors are not legal professionals, they are expected to issue verdicts that align with a reasonable evaluation of the evidence. If a jury fails to meet this expectation, their verdict may be vacated. Recently, a New York court discussed the grounds for setting aside a jury’s verdict in a case arising out of a motor vehicle accident. If you sustained injuries in a car crash caused by another party’s negligence, you have the right to seek redress, and it is in your best interest to talk to a Syracuse personal injury attorney about your potential claims.

Factual and Procedural History

It is alleged that the plaintiff was involved in a collision with a bus operated by the defendant driver and owned by the defendant company. The plaintiff sustained injuries in the crash; as such, she filed personal injury claims against the defendants. The case was tried before a jury that ultimately issued a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of liability.

Reportedly, the jury issued a separate verdict in which it awarded her over $800,000 in damages for future pain and suffering. The defendants filed a motion to set aside the verdict and for judgment in their favor as a matter of law. Alternatively, the defendants argued that the verdict should be set aside as against the weight of the evidence. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion, and they appealed. Continue reading

Published on: December 18, 2022

New York Court Discusses Grounds for Precluding Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Cases

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice cases are typically a battle between the party’s experts. As such, if the court prohibits a plaintiff’s expert from testifying, it can greatly impair their ability to establish liability. In some instances, though, a plaintiff may be able to successfully argue that their expert was improperly precluded from testifying, as shown in a recent opinion delivered in a New York medical malpractice case. If you suffered harm due to inadequate medical care, you might be owed compensation, and it is smart to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a hysterectomy that was performed by the defendant. Following the surgery, she developed necrotizing fasciitis. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, arguing that his negligent post-surgical care constituted medical malpractice. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to preclude the plaintiff’s expert from testifying regarding the cause of her infection. The court granted the motion, and the case proceeded to trial. The jury ultimately found in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

Grounds for Precluding Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Cases

On appeal, the plaintiff argued, among other things, that the trial court erred in barring her expert from offering testimony. The court agreed and ultimately reversed the trial court ruling and remanded the matter for further proceedings. In doing so, the court explained that each party must identify the person they intend to call to testify as an expert witness at trial, disclose the subject matter of their testimony, and offer their qualifications. Continue reading

Published on: December 13, 2022

New York Court Examines Issues of Fact in Medical Malpractice Cases

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

It is not uncommon for more than one doctor to perform surgery on a patient. If the patient subsequently suffers harm due to mistakes made during the procedure, the surgeon in charge of the patient’s care may be deemed liable for medical malpractice, even if other doctors participated in the surgery. This was demonstrated in a recent New York ruling in which the court found that factual issues existed as to whether the defendant surgeon caused the plaintiff’s harm and reversed the trial court ruling dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. If you were hurt during a medical procedure, it is in your best interest to speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer about what claims you may be able to pursue.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff suffered from abnormal uterine bleeding. As such, she underwent a hysterectomy that was performed by the defendant and another non-party doctor. The defendant operated on the right side of the plaintiff’s body, and the non-party doctor operated on the left; the plaintiff experienced excessive bleeding on the left side. After the surgery, the plaintiff reported urinary incontinence.

Allegedly, diagnostic imaging subsequently revealed that her ureter was severed during the procedure. She underwent additional surgeries to repair her injuries. She then instituted medical malpractice claims against the defendant. Following discovery, the defendant moved for dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint via summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading

Published on: December 8, 2022

New York Court Discusses Authority to Preside Over Medical Malpractice Claims

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice claims are complex, and in most instances, it is prudent for victims of medical negligence that wish to pursue claims against their healthcare providers to seek the assistance of an attorney. It is not necessary for a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case to be represented by counsel, but the decision to proceed pro se often has negative consequences. This was demonstrated recently in a case in which a New York federal court dismissed the pro se plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If you were harmed by a doctor’s failure to comply with the standard of care, you should confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer about what measures you can take to protect your interests.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff’s son was born at the defendant hospital and that he suffered an injury at birth. He was then placed in the defendant foster care center, where according to the plaintiff, the abuse continued. As such, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants in federal court, asserting claims of negligence and medical malpractice that arose under state law. He subsequently filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted his motion but ultimately dismissed his complaint due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Medical Malpractice Claims Filed in Federal Court

The court explained that federal courts have jurisdiction over a narrow range of claims. Further, they must independently determine whether they can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a claim before evaluating its merits. In other words, Congress only granted the federal courts original jurisdiction over matters in which the plaintiff asserts a federal question or where there the case involves citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy and jurisdictional requirements are met. Continue reading

Published on: November 29, 2022

Court Examines the Relation Back Doctrine in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Pursuant to New York law, parties pursuing wrongful death claims against negligent healthcare providers must comply with the applicable statute of limitations. Generally, the courts will dismiss claims filed outside of the statutory period. There are exceptions, though, that allow for the tolling of the statute of limitations, such as when a claim relates back to a previously filed pleading. In a recent opinion issued in a wrongful death and medical malpractice case, a New York court analyzed whether the relation back doctrine applies to consolidated cases, ultimately concluding that it does. If you lost a loved one due to medical malpractice, it is in your best interest to consult a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to discuss your potential claims.

The Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the decedent died in October 2017. In May 2019, the plaintiffs filed a wrongful death and medical malpractice lawsuit against multiple defendants, arguing that their failure to properly interpret the decedent’s imaging studies led to his death. In January 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second medical malpractice and wrongful death case, naming a doctor that was not properly served in the first case and her company as defendants.

Allegedly, the two cases were then consolidated. The defendants in the second action then moved for dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds that they were filed outside of the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the relation back doctrine applied and, therefore, the claims were not barred by the statute of limitations. Continue reading

Published on: November 23, 2022

New York Court Discusses Grounds for Granting a Motion for Change of Venue in a Medical Malpractice Case

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Generally, a plaintiff in a medical malpractice lawsuit has the right to designate the venue for the case in the initial pleading. The right is not boundless, however, and there are several grounds upon which a defendant can seek a change of venue. Recently, in an opinion delivered by a New York court in a matter arising out of medical malpractice, the court explained the basis for granting a motion for a change of venue. If you suffered harm because of inadequate medical care, it is smart to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer about your rights.

The History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff sought treatment from the defendant optometrist for a detached retina in the left eye. The defendant performed an attachment procedure but according to the plaintiff, failed to do so properly. The procedure occurred in the Bronx, at the office of the defendant practice.

It is reported that the plaintiff subsequently filed a medical malpractice claim against the defendants in Bronx County. The defendant practice was dismissed from the case. The defendant optometrist then moved to transfer venue to New York County. Continue reading

Published on: November 14, 2022

New York Court Declines to Exercise Federal Jurisdiction Over Medical Malpractice Claims

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

While it is prudent for people who want to pursue civil claims to seek the assistance of an attorney in most instances, medical malpractice cases are especially complex, and the decision to proceed pro se often negatively impacts a plaintiff’s rights. The ramifications of pursuing medical malpractice claims without an attorney were demonstrated in a recent New York matter in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. If you were hurt by the negligence of a physician, it is in your best interest to retain a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to assist you in protecting your interests.

Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital and discharged later the same day. He did not indicate the nature of his concerns in his complaint. Four days later, he suffered a medical incident and was taken to the defendant medical center, where he was again discharged the same day. He subsequently fell after his discharge and was readmitted. During his second admission to the medical center, he had a pacemaker implanted. He then filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants in federal court, seeking $50,000 in compensation. He was not represented by an attorney and requested to proceed in forma pauperis.

Federal Jurisdiction Over Medical Malpractice Claims

While the court granted the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, it dismissed the plaintiff’s claims without prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court explained that if it determines at any juncture that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a matter, it must dismiss the action. Continue reading

Published on: November 7, 2022

New York Court Grants Summary Judgment in Plaintiff’s Favor in a Car Accident Case

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Although the majority of car accidents are caused by careless driving, people who negligently cause collisions rarely admit liability. Instead, in most instances, they will argue that there are factual disputes that must be resolved by a jury. In some cases, though, the evidence will be so compelling that the courts will deem a defendant liable as a matter of law, as demonstrated in a recent opinion issued in a New York case arising out of a rear-end collision. If you were hurt in a car crash, you have the right to seek compensation, and it is wise to talk to a Syracuse personal injury attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff husband was driving a vehicle in which the plaintiff wife was riding as a passenger when they were struck from behind by a car driven by the defendant. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit in which they asserted negligence claims against the defendant.

Allegedly, the defendant filed an answer in which he set forth the affirmative defense of comparative negligence. The plaintiffs then moved for dismissal of the affirmative defense and summary judgment in their favor on the issue of liability. The trial court denied their motion, and they appealed. Continue reading

Published on: October 27, 2022

New York Court Explains Grounds for Granting Summary Judgment in a Bike Accident Case

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Bicycle accidents can cause catastrophic harm, and in most instances, they can are brought about by negligence. As such, people hurt in such crashes will often seek compensation from the person they deem responsible. While liability is obvious in some bike accident cases, in others, the issue of fault must be determined by a jury. This was illustrated in a recent New York ruling delivered in a bicycle accident case in which the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. If you suffered harm in a bike accident, it is in your best interest to meet with a Syracuse personal injury attorney to determine your potential claims.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff sustained injuries in a bike accident when he collided with the open door of the defendant’s van. He subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, alleging he negligently caused the crash. The accounts of how the accident occurred differed. The plaintiff asserted that he was riding at a speed of five to seven miles per hour and that the defendant swung his door open seconds before the plaintiff struck it.

It is reported that the defendant stated that he checked the lane behind him and saw nothing for 200 feet and opened his door, and five seconds later, the plaintiff hit it. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability and for dismissal of the defendant’s affirmative defense of contributory negligence. The trial court granted the motion, and the defendant appealed. Continue reading