Syracuse Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
When families bring loved ones to an emergency department, they trust that medical professionals will act in accordance with both accepted medical standards and the patient’s legally documented wishes. Situations involving advance directives can become especially complex when emergencies arise and critical decisions must be made in seconds. A recent decision from a New York court examines these issues in the context of chest compressions performed on a patient who had executed a Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment. If you or someone close to you has concerns about medical care provided in a hospital setting, it is essential to consult with an experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorney who can evaluate whether a patient’s rights were properly protected.
Case Setting
Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action as the limited administrator of the decedent’s estate after the decedent became unresponsive shortly after arriving at the defendant hospital’s emergency department with complaints including abdominal pain. Employees of the defendant performed chest compressions, unaware that the decedent had previously executed a Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment declining life-saving measures. The chest compressions revived the decedent but were alleged to have caused injuries, including rib fractures, and the decedent died several hours later from a subsequent cardiac event.
Reportedly, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant’s employees breached the standard of care by performing chest compressions in direct contravention of the MOLST, resulting in pain and suffering related to the injuries caused by the resuscitation efforts. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including the argument that the action stated a claim for “wrongful life,” was time-barred as a battery, and could not proceed absent a statutory cause of action for violating a MOLST. The trial court denied the defendant’s motions, allowing the matter to proceed. A jury later returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the court denied the defendant’s motions for a directed verdict and to set aside the verdict. The defendant then appealed.
Permissible Claims in a Medical Malpractice Case
On appeal, the defendant first challenged the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the action at the pleading stage. The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff’s claim amounted to an impermissible “wrongful life” cause of action. Instead, the court reasoned that the plaintiff properly asserted a medical malpractice claim seeking damages for the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering allegedly caused when the defendant’s employees exceeded the scope of the decedent’s consent. The court further concluded that the claim did not sound in battery because the employees were unaware of the MOLST at the time they administered chest compressions, placing the matter within the realm of negligence rather than intentional tort.
The defendant next contended that no private cause of action existed for violating a MOLST absent explicit statutory authorization. The court held that even if no statute creates such a right, claims of this nature may proceed under traditional common-law medical malpractice principles.
The court noted that the right of a competent adult to refuse medical treatment, even when the refusal may result in death, is firmly grounded in New York common law. Advance directives, including MOLSTs, are recognized means through which a patient may decline resuscitation, even in emergency circumstances. Although emergency conditions may affect the standard of care in a particular situation, they do not categorically relieve a provider of the obligation to honor a MOLST when reasonably aware of its existence.
The defendant also argued that it was entitled to statutory immunity for disregarding a MOLST during an emergency. Under New York law, providers may disregard a do-not-resuscitate order if, among other conditions, they believe in good faith that the patient has revoked the order or if significant medical circumstances justify disregarding it. The court found this argument inapplicable because the plaintiff did not allege that employees intentionally disregarded or believed the MOLST had been revoked. Instead, the employees were simply unaware of its existence.
The court ultimately agreed with the defendant, however, that the trial court erred in denying the motion for a directed verdict following the jury trial. Viewing the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the appellate court concluded that no rational jury could find in the plaintiff’s favor because the plaintiff failed to provide expert testimony establishing the applicable standard of care or identifying a deviation from that standard.
The plaintiff’s expert described various ways a hospital might communicate MOLST information, but did not articulate a recognized standard of care governing such situations, nor did he opine that the defendant’s employees violated any such standard under the circumstances presented. In the absence of essential expert proof, the plaintiff could not sustain a medical malpractice claim, and the court therefore reversed the judgment and dismissed the complaint.
Consult with a Knowledgeable Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney
Questions concerning advance directives, emergency medical care, and a patient’s right to refuse life-sustaining treatment can be legally and emotionally complex. If you believe that you or a loved one received treatment inconsistent with documented medical wishes, it is advisable to seek guidance from an attorney experienced in medical malpractice litigation. The medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can help you understand your rights and explore available legal options. Contact us at 833-200-2000 or online to schedule a free and confidential consultation. We proudly serve clients throughout Rochester and Upstate New York State.
