Medical malpractice cases involving delayed diagnosis often turn on whether a physician reasonably evaluated symptoms and acted promptly to rule out serious conditions. When a patient presents with evolving or atypical symptoms, disputes frequently arise over whether diagnostic testing should have been ordered sooner and whether any delay caused avoidable harm. A recent opinion from a New York court illustrates how courts assess competing expert opinions at the summary judgment stage and reaffirms that medical malpractice claims should proceed to trial when factual disputes remain unresolved. If you believe a delayed diagnosis worsened their medical outcome, you should consider speaking with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your options.
Case Setting
It is reported that the plaintiff sought medical care from an internist after experiencing severe abdominal pain. During that visit, the physician ordered blood work and advised the plaintiff to arrange a computed tomography scan. The initial examination did not result in immediate emergency imaging, and the plaintiff was sent home pending further evaluation.
Allegedly, the following day, the physician contacted the plaintiff to discuss blood test results that showed elevated white blood cell and neutrophil levels. During that conversation, the plaintiff informed the physician that she had gone to an emergency department the prior evening and had been diagnosed with a urinary tract infection. The physician advised the plaintiff to obtain a CT scan if her symptoms worsened.
Reportedly, two days later, the plaintiff presented to a different emergency department, where she was diagnosed with acute appendicitis, peritonitis, and multiple abdominal abscesses. She was hospitalized for an extended period, during which abscesses were drained, and intravenous antibiotics were administered. Due to significant inflammation, an appendectomy could not be safely performed at that time.
It is alleged that several months later, the plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy that required additional procedures, including lysis of adhesions and partial removal of surrounding tissue. The plaintiff subsequently commenced an action asserting causes of action for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, alleging that the failure to timely diagnose appendicitis resulted in severe complications and prolonged treatment.
Reportedly, after discovery was completed, the defendants moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the medical malpractice claim. The trial court granted that portion of the motion and dismissed the claim, concluding that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff appealed.
Role of Expert Disputes in Medical Malpractice Claims
On appeal, the court reviewed the summary judgment determination under well-established standards governing medical malpractice claims. The court explained that to prevail on summary judgment, a defendant must demonstrate either that there was no departure from accepted medical practice or that any alleged departure was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. If that showing is made, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to submit competent medical evidence raising a triable issue of fact.
The court noted that, in medical malpractice cases, summary judgment is generally inappropriate when the parties submit conflicting expert opinions on diagnosis, treatment, or causation. Competing expert affidavits often present issues that must be resolved by a factfinder rather than decided as a matter of law.
In this case, the defendants submitted expert opinion evidence asserting that the physician acted within accepted medical practice by not ordering an immediate CT scan, given the plaintiff’s reported symptoms and the absence of classic signs of appendicitis. The defense expert further opined that the plaintiff’s laboratory findings and symptoms were consistent with the urinary tract infection diagnosis she had received and that any delay in diagnosing appendicitis did not cause the plaintiff’s injuries.
The plaintiff, however, submitted expert opinion evidence directly contradicting those conclusions. The plaintiff’s expert opined that the presenting symptoms and laboratory abnormalities were consistent with acute appendicitis and required immediate diagnostic imaging to rule out that condition. The expert further concluded that the failure to order a stat CT scan allowed the infection and inflammation to progress, leading to abscess formation, prolonged hospitalization, and more complex surgical intervention.
The court determined that the plaintiff’s expert opinions were neither speculative nor conclusory and directly addressed both departure from accepted medical practice and proximate causation. Because the record contained sharply conflicting medical opinions, the court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. As such, the court reversed the judgment insofar as appealed from and reinstated the medical malpractice cause of action, allowing the claim to proceed.
Talk to an Experienced Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney
If you were hurt by a delayed diagnosis, it is important to understand your rights, and you should talk to an attorney. The experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers represent clients throughout Syracuse, Rochester, and Upstate New York. You can reach DeFrancisco & Falgiatano at 833-200-2000 or visit us online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.