Medical Malpractice Law

Grounds for Dismissing Medical Malpractice Claims

Published on: November 18, 2025 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

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.

New York Court Discusses Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: September 15, 2025 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

When families turn to doctors for surgery, they trust that medical decisions will be carefully weighed against the risks involved. If tragedy follows, they often seek answers in the courtroom. In malpractice litigation, however, it is not enough to suspect negligence; plaintiffs must prove it with qualified expert testimony that links a physician’s actions to the harm suffered. A recent ruling from a New York court shows how fragile malpractice claims can be when expert support is lacking. If you or a loved one has been harmed after surgery, it is essential to consult with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about what you can do to protect your rights.

Facts and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of the decedent, filed a malpractice action against the defendant surgeon following complications from an incarcerated incisional hernia repair performed in May 2018. During the procedure, the surgeon repaired the hernia and resected a portion of the bowel. Postoperatively, the decedent experienced infection, respiratory failure, and eventual decline.

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s expert, a general surgeon licensed in Illinois, California, and Missouri, testified that the defendant departed from the standard of care by proceeding with surgery rather than attempting conservative management in the 92-year-old patient. He also claimed the defendant later failed to properly evaluate a fluid collection on a CT scan, mislabeling it as a hematoma rather than an abscess. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Liability for Post-Surgical Complications

Published on: August 20, 2024 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Heart conditions often cause critical health issues that require surgery. It is not uncommon for patients to develop complications following such procedures, and therefore, it is crucial that they are thoroughly and regularly assessed during their recovery period. If they are not and subsequently encounter significant difficulties, their provider may be deemed negligent. In a recent case, a New York court discussed liability for post-surgical complications and the evidence needed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact. If you were hurt by negligent medical care, it is smart to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is reported that the decedent, a 50-year-old woman, was diagnosed with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and underwent a septal myectomy, an elective open-heart surgery, in June 2014. Following the surgery, she was placed in the Cardiac Care Unit and was treated with Heparin and a pneumatic sequential compression device to prevent deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Over the next few days, the decedent exhibited symptoms of DVT, but her vital signs remained within normal limits.

It is alleged that five days after her surgery, the decedent’s condition suddenly deteriorated, and she went into cardiac arrest twice. Despite resuscitation efforts, she was pronounced dead. An autopsy later revealed that the cause of death was an acute pulmonary embolism. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that the defendants committed medical malpractice. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that they had met the standard of care and that any deviation from the standard was not the proximate cause of death. The plaintiff opposed the motion. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses the Standard of Care in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: October 23, 2023 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Many medical procedures carry some degree of risk, but the benefits often outweigh the potential for harm. In some instances, though, complications arise due to errors during a surgical procedure that fall outside of the known risks, and in such cases, they often constitute grounds for pursuing medical malpractice claims. In a recent New York ruling issued in a medical malpractice case, the court explained what evidence is necessary to demonstrate a genuine factual dispute as to whether the defendant deviated from the standard of care. If you were injured during a negligently performed procedure, it is wise to confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your rights.

Factual and Procedural Background

Reportedly, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants inadvertently perforated the decedent’s artery during a peripheral arterial procedure, which subsequently resulted in the decedent experiencing a cardiac arrest, seizure, and stroke. As such, the plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants. While the defendants’ expert acknowledged that they had inadvertently passed a wire through the decedent’s renal artery, puncturing the kidney, the parties’ experts disagreed on whether this perforation of the renal artery constituted a departure from the standard of medical care. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted their motion. The plaintiff then appealed.

Demonstrating a Departure from the Standard of Care in Medical Malpractice Cases

The court reversed the trial court’s ruling on appeal. In doing so, it explained that in a medical malpractice case, the burden falls on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant deviated from accepted medical practice and that this deviation proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Explains Evidence Considered in Determining if a Medical Malpractice Action is Time-Barred

Published on: August 17, 2022 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

While people harmed by inadequate medical care have the right to pursue claims against their providers, the right is not boundless. Instead, they must file a medical malpractice lawsuit within the time proscribed by law; if they file a claim outside of the statute of limitations, it will likely be dismissed. In a recent opinion delivered by a New York court in a medical malpractice case, the court discussed the evidence considered in determining if an action is time-barred. If you were hurt by medical oversights and you have questions about your potential claims, it is prudent to confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer.

The History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff treated with the defendant from 2009 through 2013. During that time, the defendant provided the plaintiff with treatment for perimenopausal and postmenopausal symptoms. In 2014, ten months after the plaintiff’s last visit with the defendant, she treated with another physician who diagnosed her with osteopenia and osteoporosis. In 2015 plaintiff subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, arguing he negligently failed to diagnose and treat her osteoporosis in a timely manner. The defendant moved to have the plaintiff’s claims dismissed as time-barred. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Evidence Considered in Determining if an Action is Time-Barred

In a motion to dismiss a cause of action as prohibited by the applicable statute of limitations, a defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the time period within which the plaintiff needed to file their claims has expired. If the defendant meets this burden, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff, who must raise an issue of fact as to whether the statute of limitations is inapplicable or was tolled. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Examines Liability for COVID-19 Related Care

Published on: June 21, 2022 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

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 ›

Court Discusses Expert Evidence in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: June 14, 2022 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

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 ›

New York Court Discusses Notice Required in Medical Malpractice Cases Against Municipalities

Published on: August 15, 2021 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In New York, it is not uncommon for a person to receive medical care in a facility owned by a municipality. Doctors that work for municipalities, like other physicians, can make harmful mistakes, and while parties can seek compensation from municipalities via medical malpractice suits, they must comply with certain notice requirements to protect their claims. Recently, a New York court issued an opinion warning of the consequences of failing to comply with notice requirements in cases against municipalities, in a matter in which it ultimately dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. If you were hurt by incompetent medical care in a municipal facility, it is smart to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer regarding what you must do to protect your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff entered a municipally owned facility, and during her admission process, advised the defendant nurse that she was prescribed numerous medications that she must continue to take to maintain her health. She was administered some, but not all, of her medications. She later met with the defendant psychiatrist and advised she felt a manic episode coming on.

Allegedly, she was not provided the psychiatric medication she needed to manage her symptoms regardless of her requests. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendants and other parties, asserting numerous claims. The defendants moved for dismissal, while the plaintiff moved for permission to amend her complaint to add medical malpractice claims against the defendants. The defendants opposed the plaintiff’s motion. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Explains Federal Jurisdiction Over Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: June 21, 2021 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice cases are typically complex and require the retention of multiple experts, extensive discovery, analysis of complicated issues, and understanding of statutes and procedural rules. As such, while some people may be tempted to pursue such claims without the assistance of an attorney, it is generally ill-advised, as they make commit errors that could result in the dismissal of their case. This was explained in a recent New York matter in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s medical malpractice lawsuit due to his failure to pursue his claims in the proper manner. If you sustained damages due to negligent treatment from a health care provider, it is in your best interest to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer about your options for seeking damages.

The Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff treated with the defendant doctors due to issues with his back. He ultimately underwent spinal surgery, which was performed by the defendants. He subsequently suffered unspecified complications. As such, he filed a pro se lawsuit against the defendants in federal court, asserting negligence per se and medical malpractice claims. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. After a review of the pleadings, the court granted the defendants’ motion.

Jurisdiction over Medical Malpractice Claims

The court explained that while the plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, was entitled to special consideration and would be held to less stringent standards than parties represented by attorneys, his claims must nonetheless be dismissed. The court noted that pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts may exercise limited jurisdiction. Specifically, they can wield subject matter jurisdiction over claims that present federal questions, which are those in which a colorable claim arises under the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Affirms Dismissal of Medical Malpractice Claims Due to Lack of Evidence of Negligence

Published on: October 20, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In many instances in which a person dies due to a devastating medical issue, the person’s loved ones will pursue medical malpractice claims. Simply because a person dies due to the sudden progression of an illness does not necessarily mean that malpractice has occurred, however, and even in cases involving death, a plaintiff must nonetheless produce evidence sufficient to prove liability. This was illustrated in a recent medical malpractice case in New York in which the plaintiff’s medical malpractice and wrongful death claims were dismissed due to a lack of evidence that the defendants breached the standard of care. If you lost a loved one due to negligent medical care, it is prudent to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to discuss your possible claims.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff’s decedent sought treatment for back pain on three occasions in January 2012. First, he visited his primary care physician with complaints of extreme back pain and was directed to visit the emergency room. He then went to the defendant medical center, where he was examined by the defendant doctor, who ruled out an aneurysm or tracheal deviation. Two days later, he returned to the defendant primary care physician and was directed to undergo an MRI. Following the MRI, he was directed to go to the emergency room.

Allegedly, the decedent then visited the defendant hospital, where he was diagnosed with an epidural abscess. Soon after, he became paralyzed from the waist down and ultimately died due to respiratory failure. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against each of the treating providers, who, in turn, filed motions for summary judgment. The court largely granted the motions, and the plaintiff appealed.