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

Published on:

In New York, most medical malpractice cases require the plaintiff to hire one or more medical experts to explain key issues to the jury, including the manner in which the defendant caused the plaintiff’s harm. Defendants typically hire experts as well, and the outcome of the case often hinges on which expert the parties find more compelling. In some instances, a party’s expert evidence will be so strong that the case may be resolved prior to trial through summary judgment. As discussed in a recent New York case, though, summary judgment is not appropriate in cases in which the parties offer conflicting evidence. If you were hurt by the carelessness of a doctor, you should meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to assess your possible claims.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the decedent presented to the defendant, his primary care physician, complaining that he could not taste, had a loss of appetite and lost ten pounds, and was experiencing vomiting and dizziness. At a subsequent visit two weeks later, the defendant diagnosed the decedent with anemia and, because he believed he had a neoplasm, referred him to specialists.

Allegedly, the decedent visited the specialists and underwent multiple tests but died one month after his initial visit. His cause of death was hypertensive cardiovascular disease. The plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit against the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and his motion was granted. The plaintiff appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

It is not uncommon for a plaintiff in a personal injury matter to hire an expert to opine on the manner in which the defendant departed from the standard of care or otherwise caused the plaintiff’s harm. Even if expert testimony is not required it can often be helpful to help the fact finder determine the ultimate issues. A party seeking to introduce expert testimony must prove both that the expert is qualified and that their testimony will aid the trier of fact in understanding the issues, among other things. If they cannot meet this burden, their expert may be precluded from testifying, as shown in a recent New York opinion. If you suffered harm due to an accident caused by another person’s negligence, you may be owed damages, and you should confer with a Syracuse personal injury lawyer to evaluate your options.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff tripped and fell while exiting a plane owned by the defendant, fracturing her wrist. She was 87-years-old at the time of the fall. She filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, averring that she fell on a piece of metal that was part of the airplane doorway.

Allegedly, the defendant and plaintiff both engaged experts. The defendant moved to preclude the plaintiff’s expert from testifying pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and for summary judgment. The plaintiff opposed both motions, but the court ultimately granted them. Continue reading

Published on:

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted most facets of modern life, including healthcare providers’ liability for medical malpractice. For example, laws were enacted shortly after the pandemic began to protect healthcare providers from liability with regard to certain behaviors related to the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19. Such laws do not entirely insulate providers from liability relating to COVID-19, however, as shown by a recent New York opinion. If you or a loved one suffered harm due to negligent medical care, it is advisable to talk to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible regarding your possible claims.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent was a resident at the defendant nursing home. She subsequently contracted and died from COVID-19. The plaintiff, the administrator of the decedent’s estate, filed a lawsuit against the defendant asserting numerous claims, including malpractice, wrongful death, and negligence per se. The defendant moved for dismissal, arguing that the PREP Act (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) rendered them immune from liability for harm caused by COVID-19.

Liability for COVID-19 Related Care

The court ultimately granted the motion with regard to the negligence per se cause of action but denied it with respect to the remainder of the claims. The court explained that the PREP Act provides immunity only for the administration or use of a countermeasure, such as a medication for a health condition or disease that constitutes a public health emergency. Continue reading

Published on:

Generally, the average judge or juror lacks medical training or an understanding of what constitutes appropriate practices and procedures in the context of medical care. As such, in the majority of medical malpractice cases, the plaintiff must produce evidence in the form of an expert opinion to support their claims. If they fail to do so, it is likely that their claims will be dismissed. This was illustrated recently in an opinion set forth by a New York court in a medical malpractice case. If you were hurt by the recklessness of a physician, you may be owed damages, and it is in your best interest to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to avoid waiving your rights.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a medical malpractice and lack of informed consent case against the defendant in federal court. The case arose out of complications following a cosmetic procedure that the plaintiff alleged was improperly performed. Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff’s claims lacked evidentiary support in the form of an expert opinion. The court agreed and granted the defendant’s motion. The plaintiff appealed.

Expert Evidence in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court ruling. The court explained that pursuant to New York law, except in rare cases, a plaintiff must set forth expert testimony showing that there was a deviation from the accepted standards of the practice of medication and that such deviation proximately caused the plaintiff’s harm in order to establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice. In other words, unless the act that allegedly constitutes malpractice falls within the understanding of the jury, expert testimony is required. Continue reading

Published on:

The majority of expectant mothers in New York choose to deliver their babies in a hospital setting. Thus, if they suffer harm due to an error that occurs during or after their delivery, they may be able to pursue medical malpractice claims against those responsible for their harm. In many instances, this includes not only the attending physicians but also the hospital itself. In a recent New York opinion issued in a medical malpractice case, the court explained when a hospital might be deemed vicariously liable for the harm caused by the physicians it employs. If you suffered harm due to a hospital’s negligence, it is smart to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to determine your options for seeking compensation.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the decedent visited the defendant hospital for prenatal care. During a treatment appointment, it was determined that she had a myoma on her cervix, which the attending physician stated should be removed once the infant was born. The baby was delivered via cesarean four days later, and at that time, the myoma had grown from the size of a grape to the size of a grapefruit.

Allegedly, the attending physician ordered a biopsy three months after the birth of the child. The biopsy, which was ultimately performed twelve weeks after the birth, revealed that the decedent had cervical cancer. She died eight months later. Her husband filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the physicians involved in her care and the hospital. The hospital moved for summary judgment, and the court granted the motion. The plaintiff appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

People harmed by incompetent medical care will often seek damages in a civil lawsuit. In most cases, their claims will sound in medical malpractice. In rare instances, though, people injured by careless physicians may be able to establish that their constitutional rights were violated. If you were hurt by a reckless doctor, you could be owed compensation, and it is advisable to confer 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 decedent, who suffered from numerous chronic health conditions, including diabetes, was living in a federal facility. During his stay, he complained that he did not feel well. He was evaluated by a nurse practitioner, and blood tests revealed that his blood glucose levels were below the normal limit. He continued to suffer from complications throughout his stay, but his health declined.

Allegedly, the decedent ultimately died due to complications of diabetes. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting that the decedent’s constitutional rights were violated due to the fact that he was denied medical care. The defendant moved for summary judgment. Continue reading

Published on:

It is well established under New York law that a doctor must obtain a patient’s informed consent prior to performing a procedure. If they fail to do so and a patient subsequently suffers harm, they may be liable for medical malpractice. Recently, a New York court discussed what a plaintiff must prove to establish liability due to the failure to obtain informed consent in a case arising out of complications following an appendectomy. If you were injured following a negligently performed surgery, it is wise to contact a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your rights as soon as possible.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff presented to the emergency department of the defendant’s hospital with complaints of abdominal pain. He was subsequently diagnosed with appendicitis and underwent an appendectomy. He later had to undergo a second surgery. He suffered complications, after which he filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that the surgeon’s failure to obtain his informed consent and negligent performance of the surgery constituted medical malpractice. The defendant moved for dismissal via summary judgment, and the court granted the motion. The defendant appealed.

Proving Liability for Failure to Obtain Informed Consent

On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling. First, the appellate court noted that the plaintiff’s medical expert, who was an internist, was not qualified to opine on the issue of whether the surgeon departed from the accepted standard of medical care in the applicable community when he performed the plaintiff’s surgeries. Specifically, the court stated that the plaintiff’s expert did not demonstrate any familiarity with abdominal surgery in particular or surgery in general. Continue reading

Published on:

People who present to emergency departments are often suffering from critical issues that need to be addressed promptly. In some instances, a delay in treatment can drastically affect a person’s outcome and may give rise to medical malpractice claims. This was demonstrated recently in a New York opinion in which the court ruled that there was a material issue of fact as to whether the defendant’s delay in offering care caused the plaintiff’s harm. If you were hurt by a negligent physician, you might be able to pursue compensation via a medical malpractice claim, and it is in your best interest to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff presented to the emergency department of the defendant hospital with a stated complaint of testicular torsion. Approximately an hour and a half after his arrival, he underwent an ultrasound which confirmed the diagnosis. He did not undergo surgery until two hours later, however. His testicle was detorsed, but it did not show any signs of viability; as such, it was removed. The defendant subsequently filed a medical malpractice claim against the defendant, alleging the delays in treatment worsened his likelihood of a good outcome. The defendant moved for summary judgment, but the court denied its motion. The defendant appealed.

Establishing Liability for Treatment Delays

Upon review, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion. Specifically, it stated that triable issues of fact existed as to whether the defendant departed from the standard of care in treating the plaintiff’s testicular torsion. Further, the court stated that there was a factual dispute as to whether any alleged deviation from the standard of care worsened the plaintiff’s prognosis. Continue reading

Justia Lawyer Rating
Contact Information