Published on:

Motions for summary judgment are common in medical malpractice cases, as parties often believe the evidence in their favor is sufficient to obtain a ruling prior to trial. When one party files a motion for summary judgment, the other must demonstrate that, contrary to the moving party’s assertions, factual disputes exist in the case that require a trial. In a recent ruling issued in a radiology malpractice case, a New York court discussed what constitutes sufficient evidence to defeat a motion for summary judgment. If you were harmed due to a negligent radiologist, it is advisable to speak to a Syracuse radiology malpractice attorney about your case.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff presented to the hospital with complaints of stomach pain. He subsequently underwent x-ray studies, which the defendant reviewed and deemed normal. The plaintiff was later diagnosed with stomach cancer. He then filed a medical malpractice claim against the defendant, alleging his failure to perform follow-up testing constituted negligence and caused the plaintiff’s harm. The parties engaged in discovery, after which the defendant filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims via summary judgment.

Evidence Sufficient to Defeat a Motion for Summary Judgment

Pursuant to New York law, a defendant moving for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case must prove the lack of any material issue of fact with respect to at least one of the elements of a medical malpractice claim. In other words, the defendant must show either that he or she did not depart from the applicable standard of care or that any such departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s harm. Continue reading

Published on:

When people suffer harm due to incompetent care provided by a doctor in a hospital, they are often able to pursue medical malpractice claims against the doctor. Many plaintiffs will attempt to seek damages from the hospitals as well, but liability will only be imposed in certain circumstances. In a recent opinion, a New York court discussed what a plaintiff must show to establish a hospital should be held accountable for the negligence of one of its physicians in a case in which the plaintiff suffered permanent brain damage due to surgical errors. If you were injured because of negligent care you received in a hospital, it is smart to meet with a Syracuse hospital malpractice attorney to discuss your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Reportedly, the plaintiff visited the defendant hospital for heart surgery in February 2014. He experienced significant complications during the surgery and was subsequently placed on a ventilator and a machine that circulated his blood outside of his body. A few days later, his condition worsened, and as he was being transported to the operating room, the tubing to his life support systems was disconnected, and he suffered a loss of oxygen, which resulted in permanent brain damage.

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the surgeon and the defendant hospital, arguing the hospital was vicariously liable for the surgeon’s negligence. The hospital moved for summary judgment, and the court granted the motion. The plaintiff appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

In New York, people harmed by medical malpractice have the right to seek compensation from the providers that caused their harm. They must abide by any applicable laws regarding notice and timeliness, though, otherwise they may waive the right to recover damages. For example, if the defendant is a municipal entity, a plaintiff must provide notice of a potential claim within 90 days of the date of harm. While in some cases, a court will grant leave to provide late notice, such permission is not always provided. Rather, as explained in a recent New York opinion, a plaintiff must show such leave is warranted. If you suffered harm because of medical malpractice, it is smart to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your options.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff suffered a hand injury, which was treated at a health clinic run by the defendant municipal corporation. He suffered complications during the healing process and subsequently had to undergo surgery. He asserted that his treatment did not meet the accepted standard of care but failed to serve the defendant with notice of the claim within 90 days as required by New York law. Approximately ten months later, he moved for leave to serve late notice of his claim. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion, and the defendant appealed. Upon review, the appellate court reversed the trial court ruling.

Grounds for Leave to Provide Late Notice of a Claim

On appeal, the court noted that the plaintiff did not offer any first-hand account of the incident or of any investigation that occurred thereafter. Further, he did not offer proof that any records of the incident existed, let alone evidence that the content of such records would show that the city had actual notice of his intention to file a civil lawsuit based on allegations of negligence within 90 days of the date of his harm or within a reasonable time after, as required to establish grounds for granting late notice under New York law. Continue reading

Published on:

Birth injuries can cause lifelong impairments that not only require costly care but are also emotionally devastating. Many birth injuries are caused by incompetent medical care, and parents of children who suffer harm at birth are often able to recover compensation for their child’s losses. The mere occurrence of an injury is not sufficient to impose liability, however. Instead, as demonstrated in a recent New York opinion, a plaintiff must produce competent evidence of medical negligence to establish a defendant’s fault. If your child was injured at birth, you might be able to pursue a claim for damages, and it is advisable to confer with a Syracuse birth injury lawyer to determine your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Claims

It is reported that the plaintiff, who was expecting her first child, was treated by the defendant midwife at the defendant hospital throughout her pregnancy. She ultimately gave birth to her son at another hospital. The infant was born prematurely and suffered numerous injuries. Thus, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants, alleging their negligence brought about her child’s harm. The defendants moved to have the plaintiff’s claims dismissed via via summary judgment, and the court granted the motion. The plaintiff then appealed.

Proving Liability in Birth Injury Cases

In New York, medical malpractice cases require proof that the defendant healthcare provider departed from the accepted standard of care and that such departure was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s harm. As such, a defendant who moves for summary judgment must establish the lack of a departure from the accepted and good practice of medicine or show that the plaintiff was not harmed by any such departure. Continue reading

Published on:

Medical malpractice cases are typically complex and require the retention of multiple experts, extensive discovery, analysis of complicated issues, and understanding of statutes and procedural rules. As such, while some people may be tempted to pursue such claims without the assistance of an attorney, it is generally ill-advised, as they make commit errors that could result in the dismissal of their case. This was explained in a recent New York matter in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s medical malpractice lawsuit due to his failure to pursue his claims in the proper manner. If you sustained damages due to negligent treatment from a health care provider, it is in your best interest to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer about your options for seeking damages.

The Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff treated with the defendant doctors due to issues with his back. He ultimately underwent spinal surgery, which was performed by the defendants. He subsequently suffered unspecified complications. As such, he filed a pro se lawsuit against the defendants in federal court, asserting negligence per se and medical malpractice claims. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. After a review of the pleadings, the court granted the defendants’ motion.

Jurisdiction over Medical Malpractice Claims

The court explained that while the plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, was entitled to special consideration and would be held to less stringent standards than parties represented by attorneys, his claims must nonetheless be dismissed. The court noted that pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts may exercise limited jurisdiction. Specifically, they can wield subject matter jurisdiction over claims that present federal questions, which are those in which a colorable claim arises under the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States. Continue reading

Published on:

Older people are especially vulnerable to the injuries that arise out of incompetent medical care, and in many instances, the harm they sustain is insurmountable, and they ultimately succumb to their illnesses. In such instances, the deceased person’s family members often can seek compensation from the negligent care providers via a wrongful death claim. In a recent New York ruling, a court discussed a dispute over verdict slips in a case in which it was alleged that medical negligence led to a person’s death. If you suffered the loss of a loved one due to incompetent medical care, you have the right to pursue claims, and you should speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to determine what compensation you may be able to recover.

The Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s decedent was admitted to the defendant hospital. One evening during his stay, he vomited and then was noted to have blue lips and nailbeds. His oxygen saturation level dropped to 55%, and he died later that evening. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging medical negligence and wrongful death claims. Prior to trial, the parties submitted proposed verdict sheets. The defendant then filed a motion asking the court to reject the plaintiff’s verdict sheet to the extent it sought damages for emotional or physical harm or death, and conscious pain and suffering caused by the defendant’s violation of New York health laws. The court denied the defendant’s motion, after which the defendant filed a motion for leave to reargue the issues.

Published on:

Plaintiffs are afforded many rights in medical malpractice claims, including to a large degree the ability to choose where the matter is filed. The right is not absolute, however, and defendants may seek a change of venue if they feel another location is appropriate or can remove cases to federal courts. Many defendants prefer to have cases heard in federal court, but there are restrictions as to what matters the courts may exercise jurisdiction over, and if a case is improperly removed, it may be remanded, as demonstrated in a recent ruling issued in a surgical malpractice case by a District Court sitting in New York. If you were injured by a carelessly performed procedure, it is prudent to meet with a Syracuse surgical malpractice lawyer about your rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a surgical procedure during which the defendant surgeons implanted a filter into one of her veins. She subsequently suffered complications and filed a medical malpractice lawsuit in state court against the defendant surgeons and the defendant hospital. She also asserted claims against the manufacturer of the filter. The defendants removed the case to the federal district court. The plaintiff then filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, arguing that the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims.

Federal Jurisdiction Over Medical Malpractice Claims

Pursuant to federal law, a defendant in a case brought in state court may remove the matter to the district court in the place the action is pending. District courts have jurisdiction over any civil matter where the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000, and the parties are citizens of different states. If a party removes an action filed in state court to federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship, and the plaintiff challenges the district court’s jurisdiction as the basis for removal, the removing party bears the burden of providing adequate proof of its right to be heard in a federal forum. Continue reading

Published on:

In medical malpractice cases in New York, plaintiffs are required to set forth bills of particulars, which essentially explain the plaintiff’s injuries and damages in detail. It is critical that a plaintiff file a bill of particulars that is detailed and comprehensive, as there are strict rules regarding what information a bill of particulars can contain, the manner in which they can be modified, and how many amendments are permitted. Recently, a New York court issued a ruling in a podiatry malpractice case, in which it discussed amendments to a bill of particulars. If you suffered harm due to the negligent treatment of a foot condition or disease, you might be owed damages, and you should speak to a trusted Syracuse podiatry malpractice lawyer.

Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff treated with the defendant podiatrist in 2016 for bunion deformities on both feet. The defendant eventually removed the plaintiff’s bunions surgically. The plaintiff asserted the procedure was performed improperly, leading to numerous complications. As such, he filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant.

It is reported that the plaintiff filed an initial bill of particulars in January 2018 and served the defendant with two supplemental bills of particulars later that year. In January 2019, a note of issue was filed, and in August 2019, the plaintiff served the defendant with a third supplemental bill of particulars. The defendant moved to strike the third supplemental bill of particulars as it alleged new injuries, and the court granted the motion. The plaintiff then filed a motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars. Continue reading

Published on:

In many medical malpractice cases that arise out of negligent care received in a hospital, the plaintiff will not only assert claims against the doctor who provided the treatment in question but will also seek damages from the hospital. Whether a hospital will be found vicariously liable for the acts of a physician depends, in part, on whether the doctor was an employee of the hospital. As discussed in a recent New York opinion, there is an exception, however, that will allow a hospital to be held vicariously liable despite a doctor’s employment status at the time the harm occurred. If you were hurt because of incompetent care in an emergency room, it is advisable to speak to a seasoned Syracuse emergency room malpractice lawyer to evaluate your possible claims.

The Decedent’s Care

It is reported that the decedent was taken by ambulance to the emergency department of the defendant hospital due to complaints of nausea, vomiting, and severe abdominal pain. He was admitted, and shortly thereafter, the defendant surgeon performed an emergency procedure on the decedent. The decedent died the following day. The plaintiff, the decedent’s wife, filed a lawsuit against the defendants asserting wrongful death and medical malpractice claims. After the parties completed discovery, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether the defendant hospital was vicariously liable for the acts of the defendant surgeon. The court denied the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

A Hospital’s Vicarious Liability for Harm Caused by a Doctor

Generally, pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital may be found vicariously liable for the malpractice or negligence of employees that are acting within the scope of their employment, but not for the malpractice or negligence of a physician working independently, such as when the patient retains the physician by his or her self. Continue reading

Published on:

People that pursue medical malpractice claims often are required to produce their medical records, including mental health records, throughout the course of litigation. Such records often contain sensitive information, however, and some plaintiffs may be reluctant to provide them to the defendant without just cause. In a recent cardiology malpractice matter, a New York court set forth an opinion explaining what constitutes sufficient grounds to compel a plaintiff to provide authorizations for mental health records. If you sustained damages because of a negligent cardiologist, it is smart to consult a knowledgeable Syracuse cardiology malpractice lawyer to assess your potential claims.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff presented to the defendant with multiple symptoms related to his underlying heart condition. The defendant subsequently performed surgery on the plaintiff, which the plaintiff alleged was done in a negligent manner, causing him to suffer injuries. As such, he filed a medical malpractice case against the defendant.

Allegedly, during discovery, the defendant asked the plaintiff to complete authorizations that would allow the defendant to obtain his mental health records. The plaintiff declined, and the defendant filed a motion to compel the plaintiff to comply with his request. The court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed. Continue reading

Justia Lawyer Rating
Contact Information