Expectant parents rely on medical professionals to recognize complications, respond appropriately, and ensure the safety of both mother and child. When they fail to do so, it can lead to devastating injuries. Families impacted by birth injuries have the right to seek compensation, but whether they prevail depends, in part, on the evidence they offer in support of their claims, as demonstrated in a recent New York ruling. If your child suffered harm at birth, it is critical to understand your options, and you should speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney.
Case Setting
Allegedly, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice and negligence action on behalf of the infant plaintiff and the mother, asserting that the defendants failed to meet the accepted standard of care leading up to an emergency Cesarean section. The plaintiffs contended that the mother suffered from a large uterine fibroid and preeclampsia, conditions that increased the risk of placental abruption, and that the defendant physicians should have acted differently in the days prior to delivery. They asserted that the mother should not have been discharged from the hospital five days before the infant’s birth and should have been admitted three days before delivery to ensure closer observation.
Reportedly, after the action was filed, the defendants moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims and cross-claims, arguing that their treatment decisions were medically appropriate. The plaintiffs sought multiple adjournments to respond to the motion, and although the defendants initially consented, they later objected as delays continued for approximately a year. The trial court granted additional extensions but ultimately sanctioned the plaintiffs for noncompliance and warned that the summary judgment motion would be granted with prejudice if the plaintiffs did not timely file opposition papers. When the plaintiffs failed to submit their response by the court-ordered deadline, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the scheduling directive.
Grounds for Dismissing Medical Malpractice Claims
The court first considered whether the trial court erred in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground of the plaintiffs’ repeated delays. Trial courts have broad authority to manage their calendars, enforce deadlines, and impose sanctions designed to maintain orderly litigation.
The court noted that the trial judge balanced the parties’ competing interests by offering the plaintiffs an opportunity to explain the delays during an in-person conference, while also making clear that additional noncompliance would have consequences. Determining that this approach represented a reasonable exercise of discretion, the court upheld the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the action on procedural grounds.
The court then examined the merits of the defendants’ summary judgment motion concerning the negligence claim. Under New York law, a defendant in a medical malpractice action must demonstrate either that there was no departure from accepted medical practice or that any departure did not cause the plaintiff’s injuries. If the defendant meets this burden, the plaintiff must produce a competent expert affidavit raising a material factual dispute.
Here, the defendants established through detailed physician affidavits that their treatment conformed to accepted standards. They explained that they considered the mother’s risk of placental abruption, consulted a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, and followed the specialist’s recommendation that outpatient management with twice-weekly prenatal evaluations was appropriate. They further described the testing performed shortly before delivery, which confirmed fetal well-being.
The plaintiffs’ expert affidavit failed to create a triable issue of fact because it did not address critical components of the defendants’ proof. The expert did not explain why reliance on the specialist’s recommendation fell below acceptable practice and did not confront the testing that indicated the fetus was stable before delivery.
The court also noted that the plaintiffs did not oppose the specialist’s own summary judgment motion, further undermining their position. Because the expert opinion did not meaningfully rebut the defendants’ submissions, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown a departure from accepted medical practice. Accordingly, the court reversed the lower court’s ruling on that issue and granted summary judgment dismissing the negligence claim against the defendants.
Speak to a Trusted Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney
If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of negligent medical care, you should speak to an attorney about your potential claims. The trusted Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can help you understand your rights and pursue any available compensation. Contact us at 833-200-2000 or online to schedule a free and confidential consultation. We proudly serve clients throughout Syracuse and Upstate New York State.