Medical malpractice cases filed in federal court are often subject to levels of review not present at the state level. For example, if a party files a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, the motion may be referred to a magistrate judge, who will make a recommendation to the court regarding whether to grant or deny the motion. While a magistrate’s recommendation is not binding, they are often adopted by the courts. Parties have the opportunity to object to such recommendations, however, if they are unfavorable. Recently, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York discussed the standard of review employed when evaluating objections to magistrate recommendations in a case in which it ultimately dismissed the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims. If you sustained damages due to incompetent medical care, it is smart to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to determine your possible claims.
The Procedural History of the Case
It is reported that the plaintiff, who lived in a facility operated by the federal government, sought treatment for symptoms affecting his eye. He visited a doctor who worked for the facility and underwent an examination. The doctor then prescribed the plaintiff medication. The drug caused severe harm to the plaintiff’s eye.
It is alleged that the doctor also failed to treat the plaintiff’s subsequent harm in a timely manner. Thus, he filed a lawsuit against the federal government, alleging the doctor’s failure to warn the plaintiff of the potential risks associated with the medication and the failure to provide prompt treatment for his resulting harm constituted medical malpractice. Following discovery, the government moved for summary judgment. The motion was reviewed by a magistrate judge, who issued a report and recommendation that the court grant the motion. The plaintiff then objected. Continue reading