Serving Clients Throughout Upstate New York with Multiple Convenient Locations

Articles Posted in Cardiology Malpractice

Published on:

When a doctor recommends a treatment to a patient, they must not only inform the patient of its benefits but also of any potential complications or side effects that may arise. Additionally, the doctor must advise the patient of other treatment options that are available. If a physician fails to do so and a patient subsequently suffers harm, the patient may be able to establish liability for lack of informed consent. If the plaintiff fails to introduce evidence establishing a material factual issue as to whether the defendant obtained valid consent prior to treating the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff’s lack of informed consent claims may be dismissed. This was demonstrated in a recent opinion issued in a New York cardiology malpractice case. If you sustained losses due to your heart doctor’s carelessness, it is in your best interest to speak to a Syracuse cardiology malpractice lawyer regarding your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was treated with the defendant cardiologist for heart issues. The defendant recommended that the plaintiff undergo surgical repair of his mitral valve and an aortic aneurysm. The plaintiff suffered complications following the surgery and filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. Among other things, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to obtain his informed consent prior to operating on his heart. The defendant moved for dismissal via summary judgment, and the court granted his motion. The plaintiff then appealed.

Elements of a Lack of Informed Consent Claim

On appeal, the appellate court explained that the defendant made a prima facie showing of informed consent via medical records and testimony that demonstrated that he advised the plaintiff of the relatively foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the plaintiff signed two different consent forms acknowledging his understanding of those risks. Continue reading

Published on:

People that pursue medical malpractice claims often are required to produce their medical records, including mental health records, throughout the course of litigation. Such records often contain sensitive information, however, and some plaintiffs may be reluctant to provide them to the defendant without just cause. In a recent cardiology malpractice matter, a New York court set forth an opinion explaining what constitutes sufficient grounds to compel a plaintiff to provide authorizations for mental health records. If you sustained damages because of a negligent cardiologist, it is smart to consult a knowledgeable Syracuse cardiology malpractice lawyer to assess your potential claims.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff presented to the defendant with multiple symptoms related to his underlying heart condition. The defendant subsequently performed surgery on the plaintiff, which the plaintiff alleged was done in a negligent manner, causing him to suffer injuries. As such, he filed a medical malpractice case against the defendant.

Allegedly, during discovery, the defendant asked the plaintiff to complete authorizations that would allow the defendant to obtain his mental health records. The plaintiff declined, and the defendant filed a motion to compel the plaintiff to comply with his request. The court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

People harmed by medical malpractice have the right to pursue damages, but they must do so within the applicable statute of limitations. Additionally, in certain circumstances, a plaintiff must comply with other statutory notice requirements, and the failure to do so may result in dismissal of the claims asserted. This was illustrated in a recent New York ruling in which the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim on the defendant hospital in a cardiology malpractice case. If you sustained harm because of a careless doctor, you could be owed damages, and it is wise to consult a dedicated Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Allegedly, in September 2016, the plaintiff was admitted to a hospital owned by the defendant municipal entity, where he was diagnosed with endocarditis. He was treated with antibiotics and released. A week after his discharge, he returned, and tests revealed that the infection spread to his brain. He was admitted to a second hospital owned by the defendant, where he was treated for infective endocarditis. He then had to undergo a surgical replacement of his mitral valve two months later.

It is reported that approximately a year and a half after his initial diagnosis, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice case against the defendant, alleging it was negligent in failing to diagnose and treat his endocarditis. The plaintiff then filed a motion seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim on the defendant. The trial court denied the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

In many medical malpractice cases in New York, the defendant will move to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim via summary judgment by arguing that no factual disputes remain and that upon review of the evidence, it is clear that the defendant did not harm the plaintiff. Usually, the primary basis for the defendant’s assertions is an affidavit from a medical expert. A plaintiff can argue in opposition to such a motion, though, by providing the report of its own expert to refute the defendants. Recently, a New York court issued an opinion discussing the grounds for granting or denying summary judgment in a case arising out of cardiovascular malpractice. If you sustained harm while treating for heart issues, you should speak to a knowledgeable Syracuse cardiology malpractice attorney about your potential claims.

The Decedent’s Care

It is reported that the decedent visited the defendant cardiologist with complaints of shortness of breath, lightheadedness, and other issues. The defendant performed a series of tests on the decedent and referred him for additional testing. After an echocardiogram revealed that the decedent was suffering from mildly dilated valves, the defendant advised him to follow up in one year.

Allegedly, the decedent never returned, and approximately two years after his initial visit, he died due to a ruptured aortic aneurysm. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging claims of medical malpractice. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court denied. He then appealed. Continue reading

Justia Lawyer Rating
Contact Information