Neurosurgery Malpractice

Court Explains Reliability of an Expert Report in a Neurological Malpractice Case

Published on: November 24, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In many medical malpractice cases in New York, the defendant will file a motion asking the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims prior to trial. If the defendant produces an expert report that adequately demonstrates that it should not be deemed liable, the motion will be granted unless the plaintiff produces a report in opposition showing that disputed issues remain that must be presented to a jury. The plaintiff’s report must comply with certain standards, though, otherwise it will be deemed inadequate to prove a trial must be held. What constitutes an adequate expert report in a medical malpractice case was the topic of a recent opinion issued by a New York court in a case in which the plaintiff pursued claims against the defendant that arose out of the treatment of a brain tumor. If you sustained injuries or lost a loved one because of inadequate care from a neurologist, it is advisable to speak to a Syracuse neurology malpractice attorney regarding your options for pursuing damages.

The Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Care and the Plaintiff’s Claims

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s decedent was treated by the defendants for a brain tumor. The decedent’s tumor was successfully removed; however, it recurred and ultimately led to the decedent’s death. The plaintiff, who was the decedent’s wife, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants, arguing that their failure to properly monitor the decedent’s health constituted negligence and that it led to the recurrence and the failure to diagnose and treat the recurrence in a timely manner. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff had not demonstrated a departure from the standard of care. The court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed.

Reliability of an Expert Report

On appeal, the appellate court found in favor of the defendants and reversed the trial court ruling. Specifically, the appellate court stated that the trial court appropriately determined that the defendants established that the evidence, when taken at face value, demonstrated their right to judgment as a matter of law. In other words, the defendants’ expert affidavit argued that the defendants did not depart from the standard practice of medicine and relied on specific facts from the record, addressing each of the plaintiff’s claims.

New York Court Discusses When Medical Treatment that Constitutes Intentional Battery

Published on: November 14, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Typically, a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action will allege that the defendant acted in a careless manner, and therefore that the plaintiff’s harm was a consequence of the defendant’s negligence. In some instances, though, inappropriate medical care will result in other claims, such as intentional battery. It is important for an injured patient to understand the nature of his or her claims and the applicable time limitations to pursuing damages for different types of harm. Otherwise, a claim may be time-barred, as illustrated in an opinion issued by a New York court in a neurosurgery malpractice case. If you suffered harm due to an incompetent neurosurgeon, it is advisable to speak to a skillful Syracuse neurosurgery malpractice attorney regarding your possible claims.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations and Pleadings

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a spinal fusion surgery, which was performed by the defendant. The surgery was intended to correct the plaintiff’s spondylolisthesis. Approximately two years after the surgery, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against the defendant, alleging negligence and lack of informed consent claims. As to the negligence claim, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had negligently repositioned or rotated the plaintiff’s pelvis during the surgery, causing her to suffer severe pain and permanent injuries. Following discovery, the defendant moved to have the plaintiff’s claims dismissed via summary judgment. The court granted the defendant’s motion, after which the plaintiff appealed.

Medical Treatment that Constitutes Intentional Battery

Upon review, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The court explained that despite the fact that the complaint only alleged the defendant acted negligently in performing the surgery, when a patient agrees to undergo a certain treatment for a condition but is subjected to a separate procedure for a completely different condition, it is clear that the deviation from the consent granted was intentional.

New York Court Discusses Evidence Evaluated in Ruling on a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Published on: February 5, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In any medical malpractice case filed in New York, the plaintiff must set forth a bill of particulars establishing the manner in which the defendant’s care caused the plaintiff’s harm. In turn, if the defendant rebuts the specific allegations in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars, thereby sufficiently showing that he or she did not cause the plaintiff’s harm, the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant may be dismissed. The plaintiff can avoid dismissal, however, by demonstrating that there are factual issues that need to be resolved via trial. Recently, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York, discussed what constitutes sufficient evidence of an issue of fact to withstand a dismissal in a case in which the plaintiff alleged he was harmed by neurology malpractice. If you sustained damages due to negligent care provided by a neurologist, it is critical to engage a Syracuse neurology malpractice attorney who will fight diligently on your behalf.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Treatment and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff suffered a fistula of a spinal artery, after which he was admitted to the defendant hospital, where he underwent diagnostic testing. Following the test, he experienced weakness in his left leg. He then underwent a surgical procedure to repair the fistula. The plaintiff ultimately filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the practitioners who performed the diagnostic test and surgery and the hospital, arguing that the procedures were performed negligently, causing him to suffer neurological harm.

It is alleged that the plaintiff set forth a bill of particulars with broad allegations regarding the negligent acts and omissions of the hospital and physicians, and alleged that as a result of their malpractice he suffered neurological damages, which affected the function of his legs, bowel, and bladder. The plaintiff discontinued the action against the individual defendants, leaving only his claims against the hospital. The hospital then filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The plaintiff appealed.

New York Court Discusses Sufficiency of Expert Reports in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: October 21, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice cases largely hinge on the sufficiency and persuasiveness of the expert reports submitted by either party. If the defendant does not have a compelling expert report, he or she may be found liable as a matter of law, whereas if the plaintiff lacks a strong report, his or her case may be dismissed via a motion for summary judgment. In a neurosurgery malpractice case recently decided by a New York appellate court, the court analyzed what constitutes a report sufficient to withstand dismissal via summary judgment. If you were injured by an improperly performed neurological surgery, it is prudent to consult a capable Syracuse neurosurgery malpractice attorney regarding your harm and what compensation you may be owed.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Treatment

It is alleged that the plaintiff was involved in a motorcycle accident, after which he developed extreme back pain. He underwent conservative treatment measures, which failed, after which he presented to the defendant neurosurgeon. The defendant diagnosed the plaintiff with spondylolisthesis at the L5-S1 vertebrae, and degenerative disc disease at the L4-L5 vertebrae and recommended surgery. The plaintiff sought a second opinion but ultimately underwent surgery.

It is reported that during the surgical procedure, the defendant removed the damaged discs, decompressed the plaintiff’s nerves, and fixated the spine. After the surgery, the plaintiff experienced severe back pain and discomfort in his left leg, which he stated was different than the pain he experienced before the surgery. He subsequently filed a malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. The defendant and the plaintiff both filed motions for summary judgment. The court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed.