Published on:

New York District Court Explains Grounds for Granting a New Trial in a Podiatry Malpractice Case

The law provides many safeguards that a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case can use to remedy results that are perceived to be unjust. For example, even if a judge or jury finds in favor of a defendant, a plaintiff in a malpractice case has the right to seek a new trial. A new trial will only be granted in certain circumstances, however, as recently explained by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, in a case arising out of an alleged failure to obtain informed consent and other deviations from the standard of care during a foot surgery. If you suffered damages due to inadequate care provided by a podiatrist, you can consult with a capable Syracuse podiatry malpractice attorney regarding the compensation that you may be able to recover for your harm.

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice case against the defendant podiatrist, alleging that the defendant failed to obtain the plaintiff’s informed consent prior to a surgical procedure and that the defendant deviated from the applicable standard of care. Following a trial, the jury found in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for a new trial.

The Standard for Granting a New Trial

Under federal law, a new trial will only be granted if the verdict rendered by the jury or judge is against the clear weight of the evidence, the trial court acted unfairly, significant evidentiary errors occurred, the jury received improper or inadequate instructions, or the judge or jury awarded excessive damages. Thus, a new trial is only warranted in cases in which it is necessary to rectify a miscarriage of justice or a clearly erroneous result, after reviewing all the evidence of record. In other words, courts are not granted the discretion to reevaluate the evidence and vacate a jury’s verdict merely because a reasonable jury could have come to a different conclusion under the facts of the case, or because the judge believes taht another result was justified.

In the subject case, the plaintiff argued that the verdict was contrary to the law and was not supported by the evidence. Upon review, however, the court disagreed. Specifically, contrary to the plaintiff’s assertion, the court found that the jury could have found that the defendant had adequately advised the plaintiff of the risks of the surgical procedure, based on the facts and evidence presented at trial. Furthermore, the court found that the jury was not required to adopt the reasoning set forth by the plaintiff’s expert regarding the harm the plaintiff allegedly suffered as a result of the surgery. As a result, the court affirmed the jury’s verdict and denied the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

Meet with a Knowledgeable Syracuse Attorney

If you suffered an illness or foot injury due to negligent care rendered by a podiatrist, it is advisable to meet with a knowledgeable Syracuse podiatry malpractice lawyer regarding your potential claims. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, our seasoned attorneys are proficient at aiding people harmed by inadequate medical care in the pursuit of damages for their harm. We can be reached at 315-479-9000 or through the form online to schedule a meeting.

Justia Lawyer Rating
Contact Information