Published on:

New York Court Discusses Procedure in Medical Malpractice Cases Filed in Federal Court

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.

Factors Weighed in Evaluating an Objection to a Magistrate Recommendation

Under the Federal Rules of Judicial Procedure, if a party objects to a report and recommendation issued by a magistrate judge, the court must review, de novo, the parts of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendations with which the party takes issue. Following the review, the court may reject, accept, or modify, in part or as a whole, the report and recommendations of the magistrate judge. Additionally, the court can ask for more evidence or send the matter back to the magistrate judge with instructions. In the subject case, the court decided to adopt the magistrate’s report and recommendation as a whole. As such, it overruled the plaintiff’s objections.

Speak to a Dedicated Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney

People who visit physicians for relief from acute or chronic symptoms typically contemplate that they will receive competent care, but unfortunately, not all doctors provide treatment that complies with the applicable standard. If you suffered losses due to the negligence of a doctor, you may be able to pursue medical malpractice claims, and it is in your best interest to speak to an attorney as soon as possible. The dedicated attorneys of DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers take pride in helping people harmed by negligent doctors seek redress for their losses, and if you hire us, we will advocate assertively on your behalf. You can reach us through our online form by calling us at 315-479-9000 to set up a meeting.

 

 

Justia Lawyer Rating
Contact Information