Birth Injury

New York Court Discusses Summary Judgment in Birth Injury Cases

Published on: July 15, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Birth injury cases often center on whether healthcare providers acted quickly enough when complications developed during labor and delivery. A recent New York decision demonstrates that medical malpractice claims involving delayed cesarean sections frequently depend on competing expert testimony regarding the applicable standard of care and whether any delay caused a newborn’s injuries. If your child suffered a preventable birth injury because of delayed medical intervention during labor and delivery, you may be owed damages, and you should speak with an experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action against several healthcare providers involved in the child’s delivery. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to timely perform a cesarean section during labor and that this delay caused the infant to sustain birth-related injuries.

It is reported that the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they did not depart from accepted medical practice and that their conduct did not cause the infant’s injuries. The trial court initially granted the motion and dismissed the claims against those defendants. The plaintiff then moved for leave to reargue, asserting that the court had overlooked the defendants’ improper reliance, in their reply papers, on a new argument that an in-house obstetrician had been notified of the patient’s condition and decided not to proceed with a cesarean section. Upon re-argument, the trial court vacated its prior ruling and denied summary judgment. The defendants appealed. Continue Reading ›

Court Explains Treatment of Conflicting Evidence in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: March 15, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Birth injury cases often turn on complex medical judgments made during labor and delivery, particularly when high-risk factors are present and rapid decisions are required. Courts must carefully evaluate whether providers complied with accepted standards of care and whether patients were adequately informed of the risks. A recent New York case highlights how conflicting expert opinions can prevent dismissal of serious medical malpractice claims, especially in cases involving delayed surgical intervention and informed consent. If your family has been affected by a birth-related injury, you should consider speaking with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to better understand your legal options and protect your rights.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice action arising from the labor and delivery of an infant, asserting that the defendants failed to timely perform a cesarean section and improperly managed a trial of labor after a prior cesarean, resulting in a uterine rupture and catastrophic neonatal injuries.

It is alleged that the mother presented with multiple high-risk factors, including a prior cesarean section, advanced maternal age, and other medical conditions, yet was permitted to attempt a vaginal delivery with induction and augmentation of labor. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Examines Timeliness of Medical Malpractice Claims

Published on: May 14, 2025 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

When a newborn suffers severe neurological injuries during childbirth, questions often arise as to whether those injuries could have been prevented through timely and appropriate medical intervention. In New York, parents must first satisfy specific procedural requirements before bringing suit against a public hospital, and if they fail to do so, they may be denied the right to seek damages. In some instances, though, courts will allow late claims to proceed where the hospital had prior knowledge of the alleged negligence and where no substantial prejudice can be shown, as demonstrated in a recent opinion issued in a New York birth injury case. If your child was harmed by negligent care at birth, you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your legal rights.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff, a pregnant woman, received care at the defendant hospital in May 2011. During her treatment, it was discovered that she was in active labor and that the fetus was in a breech position. The attending physician recommended vaginal delivery rather than a cesarean section, and the mother consented to this plan.

It is alleged that following the delivery, the infant exhibited serious complications, including a hematoma on the back, low heart rate, weak respiratory effort, and poor body temperature regulation. The infant was admitted to the hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit, where she was diagnosed with a grade IV intraventricular hemorrhage and hydrocephalus. Over time, the child developed persistent seizures, cerebral palsy, and significant developmental delays. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Examines Emotional Distress Claims in Fatal Birth Injury Cases

Published on: September 7, 2022 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

There are few things as tragic as the loss of an infant. When a baby’s death is caused by avoidable medical errors, though, it can be all the more traumatic. Doctors that cause fatal birth injuries can be held accountable for any damages they cause, but they will often try to avoid liability. For example, in a recent New York opinion, doctors argued that the plaintiff should not be awarded damages for emotional distress because her child was born alive. If you suffered the loss of a baby due to the reckless acts of a physician, it is wise to confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to discuss what evidence you must offer to demonstrate fault.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the plaintiff went to the hospital to deliver her child and was cared for by the defendant doctors during labor and delivery. The plaintiff ultimately underwent a c-section. The medical records indicated that the infant was floppy and had no heart rate or spontaneous respiration after he was removed from her womb.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants alleging, among other things, that their medical malpractice caused her to deliver a stillborn baby, thereby causing her emotional distress. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claims premised on her emotional distress, arguing that she could not recover for emotional distress because the child was born alive. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Evidence Needed to Prove the Existence of a Doctor-Patient Relationship

Published on: April 18, 2022 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

It is not uncommon for expectant mothers to treat at medical practices that employ multiple providers. If the care offered at such facilities is inadequate and causes the mother or her child to suffer harm, the mother may be able to pursue malpractice claims against more than one party. Only those individuals that have a doctor-patient relationship with the mother will be deemed directly liable, however. This was illustrated in a recent ruling issued by a New York Court in a medical malpractice case. If you or your child sustained injuries because of the negligence of a doctor, you may be owed damages, and it is smart to consult a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to discuss your potential causes of action.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants, a nurse, midwife practice, and collaborating doctor, arguing that their failure to abide by the accepted practice of medicine resulted in her child being born prematurely, which caused him to suffer brain damage and develop cerebral palsy. The defendant each moved for summary judgment; the defendant doctor argued, in part, that he did not have a treatment relationship with the plaintiff and therefore could not be held liable for medical malpractice. The trial court denied the defendant’s motions, and they appealed.

Establishing the Existence of a Doctor-Patient Relationship

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling on appeal. One of the primary issues discussed on appeal was whether the collaborating doctor had a treatment relationship with the plaintiff. The appellate court explained that a physician only owes a duty of care to their patient. Further, the duty may be limited to the medical functions the doctor undertakes, and the patient relies upon. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Notice Required in Medical Malpractice Actions Against Public Corporations

Published on: July 8, 2021 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

The birth of a child is a joyous event, but sometimes it can be marred by injuries that arise due to medical negligence. While parties can seek compensation for harm suffered during birth, they must abide by any applicable procedural rules, and if they do not, they may waive the right to recover damages. This was discussed in a recent New York opinion, in which an appellate court affirmed a trial court order granting a plaintiff leave to provide late notice of a birth injury claim. If your child suffered harm at birth, it is advisable to speak to a skilled Syracuse birth injury lawyer as soon as possible.

The Plaintiff’s Claims

It is alleged that the plaintiff delivered her son at the defendant hospital in June 2015. The child suffered a brain injury during the delivery, which the plaintiff alleged was caused by medical negligence. Thus, in May 2018, she filed a medical malpractice case against the defendant. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff neglected to serve a timely notice of the claim. The court denied the motion, and the defendant then filed an appeal.

Notice Required in Medical Malpractice Actions Against Public Corporations

New York law requires that a plaintiff who wishes to pursue claims against a public corporation must provide the corporation with notice of the claim within 90 days of when it arises. The notice is a prerequisite to filing a tort action. The courts may extend the time to serve notice if they deem it appropriate. The court will consider factors such as whether the corporation or its insurers had actual notice of the claim, whether the claimant was an infant, whether the delay was reasonable and whether any prejudice was caused by the delay. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Proving Liability in Birth Injury Cases

Published on: June 22, 2021 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Birth injuries can cause lifelong impairments that not only require costly care but are also emotionally devastating. Many birth injuries are caused by incompetent medical care, and parents of children who suffer harm at birth are often able to recover compensation for their child’s losses. The mere occurrence of an injury is not sufficient to impose liability, however. Instead, as demonstrated in a recent New York opinion, a plaintiff must produce competent evidence of medical negligence to establish a defendant’s fault. If your child was injured at birth, you might be able to pursue a claim for damages, and it is advisable to confer with a Syracuse birth injury lawyer to determine your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Claims

It is reported that the plaintiff, who was expecting her first child, was treated by the defendant midwife at the defendant hospital throughout her pregnancy. She ultimately gave birth to her son at another hospital. The infant was born prematurely and suffered numerous injuries. Thus, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants, alleging their negligence brought about her child’s harm. The defendants moved to have the plaintiff’s claims dismissed via via summary judgment, and the court granted the motion. The plaintiff then appealed.

Proving Liability in Birth Injury Cases

In New York, medical malpractice cases require proof that the defendant healthcare provider departed from the accepted standard of care and that such departure was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s harm. As such, a defendant who moves for summary judgment must establish the lack of a departure from the accepted and good practice of medicine or show that the plaintiff was not harmed by any such departure. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Illustrates the Difference Between Ordinary Negligence and Medical Malpractice

Published on: January 16, 2021 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

If a patient suffers harm at the hands of a doctor, people often assume that the doctor committed malpractice. While in many instances the assumption is accurate, doctors can also hurt people through ordinary carelessness, and in such cases, a medical malpractice claim would not be appropriate. The difference between standard negligence claims and those asserting medical malpractice was the topic of a recent New York opinion in a matter in which the plaintiff asserted she was harmed by the defendant doctor at birth. If you or your child suffered a birth injury, it is important to meet with a knowledgeable Syracuse birth injury attorney as soon as possible to discuss your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is reported that the plaintiff, who was born in 1999, suffered harm after her birth during the transfer from the delivery room. Specifically, she was injured when the defendant obstetrician tossed her to another person. As such, she filed a lawsuit against the defendant on January 6, 2020, alleging claims of negligence. The defendant moved for dismissal, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims sounded in medical malpractice and that she failed to pursue her claims within the statute of limitations or file a required certificate of merit.

Ordinary Negligence Versus Medical Malpractice Under New York Law

Upon review of the pleadings, the court found in favor of the plaintiff. The court explained that, under New York law, the difference between malpractice and ordinary negligence hinges on whether the harmful omissions or acts involve an issue of medical science or art that requires special skills that an ordinary layperson will not typically possess, or whether the behavior at issue can instead be evaluated on the basis of the factfinder’s common everyday experience. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Explains Statements Permitted by Attorneys During Birth Injury Trials

Published on: December 13, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

The job of a lawyer in a medical malpractice case is to argue that the evidence presented demonstrates liability or exonerates a defendant. Although counsel is granted broad leeway in how they describe the testimony offered at trial, they cannot couch evidence or otherwise make statements that are prejudicial to the opposing party. Recently, a New York court issued an opinion explaining the parameters of admissible statements in matters involving medical negligence in a birth injury case. If your child sustained an injury before or during birth, you could be owed significant damages, and it is prudent to meet with a skillful Syracuse birth injury attorney.

The Plaintiff’s Care and Subsequent Claims

It is reported that the plaintiff, who was pregnant, received prenatal care from the defendant obstetrician-gynecologist throughout the course of her pregnancy. She underwent an ultrasound at 20 weeks, which revealed that she had a low lying placenta. A second ultrasound a month later did not report the same result, however. Her pregnancy progressed normally, but she experienced sudden bleeding one day and went to the hospital, where she underwent an emergency caesarian section.

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s infant was born in a state of distress and sadly died four hours later. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, arguing that the defendant’s departure from the standard of care led to her child’s harm. A trial was held, and the jury found in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to set aside the verdict, which the court denied. The plaintiff then appealed.

New York Court Discusses Notice Requirements in Medical Malpractice Claims Against the State

Published on: September 21, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Even if patients suffer devastating losses as a result of incompetent medical care, they may be denied the recovery of compensation if they do not abide by their duties under the law. For example, if a patient suffers harm in a facility that is considered a State actor, the patient must provide the State with notice of his or her claims within a certain time frame, or they may waive the right to pursue claims against the State. In some instances, though, a court may grant an exception to the notice requirement, as demonstrated in a recent New York birth injury case. If your child suffered harm during delivery, it is wise to confer with a skillful Syracuse birth injury lawyer to discuss your legal rights and duties.

Factual and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff-mother visited the defendant hospital, which is owned by the State, to give birth. During the delivery of the plaintiff-mother’s son, the doctors employed by the defendant used forceps, which caused injuries that ultimately led to the infant’s death. The plaintiff-mother and plaintiff-father then filed a motion for leave seeking permission to file a late claim, pursuant to the Court of Claims Act, which dictates the manner in which claims against the State must proceed. The trial court denied the motion, after which the plaintiffs appealed. On review, the appellate court reversed the trial court ruling, granting the plaintiffs leave.

Notice Requirements Under the Court of Claims Act

Pursuant to the Court of Claims Act, a court has the discretion to permit a plaintiff to file a late claim. In determining whether to grant such permission, the court will weigh several factors, including whether the State had notice of the key facts of the claim, whether the claim seems to have merit, whether the Plaintiff has any other remedy, and whether the State had a reasonable opportunity to investigate the circumstances out of which the claim arose. The court will also look at whether the failure to serve a timely notice of the claim upon the State caused substantial prejudice, and whether the plaintiff’s delay in filing the claim was reasonable. There is no one factor that is controlling, and the absence or presence of any factor is not determinative.