Syracuse Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
A medical expert’s support can help a patient pursue a malpractice claim, but an unexplained accusation may leave the case vulnerable to dismissal. Courts examine whether an expert connects the treatment records to a specific departure from accepted care. A recent New York decision affirmed dismissal because the plaintiffs’ expert offered speculative and conclusory opinions that did not address the defendants’ evidence, demonstrating the importance of developing a medically supported theory before trial. If you suspect that inadequate treatment injured you or a family member, speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about the records and expert analysis your claim may require.
Facts and Procedural History
Allegedly, the defendants provided negligent medical care to the decedent, prompting the plaintiffs, including the estate administrator, to commence an action in November 2019. The complaint asserted medical malpractice, negligence, and related claims arising from that treatment. The parties completed discovery before the defendants sought dismissal.
Reportedly, several groups of defendants and a separately moving defendant physician submitted summary judgment motions supported by expert affirmations. The experts reviewed medical records, deposition testimony, and pleadings and concluded that the moving defendants had not departed from accepted practice. The plaintiffs opposed the motions with an expert affirmation of their own. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions in July 2024, and the plaintiffs appealed.
Demonstrating Factual Disputes Necessitating a Trial
On appeal, the court reviewed whether the moving defendants had established entitlement to judgment without a trial and whether the plaintiffs had raised a genuine factual dispute. In a medical malpractice action, a defendant seeking summary judgment must initially establish either compliance with accepted medical practice or the absence of a causal connection between any departure and the claimed injury.
Once the defendant makes that showing, the plaintiff must produce competent evidence creating a triable issue on the elements addressed by the defense. General criticism of the treatment does not satisfy that burden. The opposing opinion must provide an evidentiary basis for disagreeing with the defense showing, rather than simply state that malpractice occurred.
Here, each moving defendant satisfied the initial burden through expert opinions grounded in the treatment records and other case materials. The appellate court accepted those submissions as sufficient to support the position that the defendants had not departed from accepted medical practice. That shifted the burden to the plaintiffs to identify a supported factual disagreement.
The plaintiffs’ expert affirmation did not meet that burden. The court characterized its reasoning as conclusory and speculative and found no triable issue requiring a trial. It therefore affirmed dismissal of the complaint against the moving defendants. The opinion did not identify a particular diagnosis or treatment error in detail, so its significance lies in the adequacy of the expert proof rather than a broader medical conclusion.
Consult a Capable Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney
When medical care leaves questions unanswered, the capable Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, LLP can assess whether the evidence supports a medical malpractice claim. Call 833-200-2000 for a free consultation about the treatment, your injuries, and the next steps in investigating your legal options.
