Serving Clients Throughout Upstate New York with Multiple Convenient Locations

Articles Posted in Medical Malpractice

Medical malpractice claims involving prescription medications often turn on more than whether a healthcare provider made a questionable treatment decision. A plaintiff must also establish that the departure from accepted medical practice actually caused the patient’s injury or death. A recent federal decision applying New York law illustrates how the causation requirement can determine the outcome of a malpractice action even when the prescribing practices themselves remain disputed. If you believe negligent prescribing or medication management caused you or a loved one to suffer serious harm, you should speak with an experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your possible claims.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the decedent had a lengthy history of substance abuse and received primary care from the defendants for several years. He also had paraplegia after a prior accident and later suffered significant burns to his legs. During treatment for those burns, a medical provider prescribed hydrocodone for pain. The prescriptions continued for more than a year, even though the patient had a known history of opioid misuse, received early refills, took benzodiazepines, and produced drug-screen results showing multiple controlled substances. Family members also expressed concern that the patient was engaging in drug-seeking behavior and had resumed abusing drugs.

Reportedly, the patient was found deceased in his home in July 2021, surrounded by drug paraphernalia and evidence of recent illicit drug use. The medical examiner attributed the death to acute intoxication caused by the combined effects of several substances, including hydrocodone, alprazolam, fentanyl, and norfentanyl. The estate commenced an action asserting medical malpractice, wrongful death, and related claims against the healthcare providers and the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The defendants moved for summary judgment, maintaining that the plaintiff could not prove that any prescribed medication caused or contributed to the death.

It is alleged that the plaintiff relied on expert opinions asserting that prescribing opioids together with benzodiazepines departed from accepted medical practice and increased the risk of respiratory depression. The plaintiff’s experts also maintained that the continued opioid prescriptions contributed to the patient’s renewed addiction and eventual overdose. The defendants’ toxicology expert, however, concluded that the prescribed hydrocodone and alprazolam were present at therapeutic, nonlethal levels and that the fentanyl concentration alone fell within a fatal range. The matter came before a federal magistrate judge for a report and recommendation on the summary judgment motions. Continue Reading ›

The COVID-19 pandemic forced hospitals across New York to make difficult operational decisions while caring for unprecedented numbers of critically ill patients. Although emergency legislation temporarily protected healthcare providers from certain malpractice claims arising during that period, those protections were never intended to excuse every medical error simply because treatment occurred during the pandemic. A recent New York decision explains that healthcare providers seeking immunity must demonstrate a direct connection between the alleged negligence and the challenges created by the public health emergency. If you believe you were injured by negligent medical treatment during or after the COVID-19 pandemic, an experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorney can evaluate whether emergency immunity laws affect your right to pursue compensation.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff sought emergency treatment after experiencing symptoms consistent with a gallbladder attack. Imaging studies revealed gallstones, and the defendant surgeon recommended the removal of the gallbladder. Following the laparoscopic procedure, the plaintiff developed jaundice and worsening symptoms. Additional testing performed at another medical facility revealed that surgical clips had obstructed the common bile duct, requiring reconstructive surgery to repair the injury.

Reportedly, the plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice action alleging that the defendants negligently performed the gallbladder surgery by failing to properly identify the patient’s anatomy before placing surgical clips, causing injury to the bile duct. The plaintiffs also asserted that the defendants failed to timely recognize and diagnose the postoperative complication. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were immune from liability under New York’s Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act because the COVID-19 pandemic affected hospital operations during the plaintiff’s treatment. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice lawsuits often rise or fall based on expert testimony. When healthcare providers seek dismissal of claims before trial, plaintiffs must present detailed, well-supported expert opinions that directly address the providers’ defenses. A recent New York opinion demonstrates how courts evaluate competing expert submissions and highlights the consequences of relying on conclusory opinions that fail to engage with the opposing side’s evidence. If you lost a loved one due to negligent medical care, you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims and legal options.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action against a hospital arising out of treatment provided to the decedent during a hospitalization. The plaintiff contended that the hospital failed to provide appropriate care while transporting the decedent from the emergency department to another area of the facility and that the alleged failures contributed to serious injuries and ultimately the decedent’s death.

Reportedly, during the transfer, hospital personnel utilized an Ambu bag and monitored the decedent’s vital signs. The plaintiff later asserted that the care provided during the transfer fell below accepted medical standards and caused the decedent to experience hypoxia and other complications. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice cases frequently arise from failures to diagnose serious conditions, where even a brief delay in treatment can result in lasting harm. Courts closely examine whether a healthcare provider’s actions met accepted standards and whether expert testimony meaningfully addresses the specific allegations of negligence. A recent New York decision demonstrates how weak or conclusory expert opinions can unravel a defendant’s attempt to dismiss a case before trial. When a provider cannot fully account for critical diagnostic decisions, the claim is more likely to proceed. If you or a loved one experienced harm due to a missed or delayed diagnosis, acting quickly can make a significant difference, and you should consider speaking with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to protect your rights.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action seeking damages for injuries to the right hand, asserting that the defendant failed to properly diagnose a transected tendon in the plaintiff’s ring finger, resulting in lasting limitations in mobility.

It is alleged that the defendant treated the plaintiff but did not identify the severity of the tendon injury or recommend timely surgical intervention, which the plaintiff claims was necessary to prevent permanent impairment. Continue Reading ›

Surgical malpractice cases often hinge on whether physicians took appropriate steps before entering the operating room, including reviewing medical history and confirming key anatomical facts. When critical preoperative measures are overlooked, even routine procedures can result in avoidable harm and litigation. A recent New York ruling illustrates how failures in preoperative evaluation and disputed expert opinions can prevent dismissal of malpractice claims. If you believe a surgical error may have injured you, you should consider speaking with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to understand your rights and potential legal remedies.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic surgical procedure intended to remove the gallbladder, during which the defendant physician was unable to locate the organ.

It is alleged that subsequent imaging studies revealed that the plaintiff did not have a gallbladder, raising questions about whether appropriate preoperative diagnostic measures had been performed before the surgery. Continue Reading ›

Not every dispute involving medical care can be heard in federal court, even when a plaintiff frames the claim in constitutional terms. Jurisdictional requirements serve as a threshold barrier, and courts must dismiss actions that fall outside their statutory authority regardless of the seriousness of the allegations. A recent New York decision demonstrates how claims labeled as constitutional violations may still fail when they lack the necessary legal foundation or jurisdictional basis. This ruling highlights the importance of properly identifying the correct forum and legal theory when pursuing medical malpractice claims. If you believe that you have been harmed by negligent medical care, you should consider consulting with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to determine the appropriate legal pathway for your case.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff sought treatment at a healthcare facility where she was evaluated by a medical provider and later claimed that she was improperly diagnosed with mental health conditions and denied access to accurate medical records.

It is alleged that the plaintiff asserted that the defendants engaged in misconduct, including falsifying or withholding medical information, which she claimed violated her constitutional rights and constituted medical malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice claims against public hospitals present unique procedural hurdles that can be just as critical as the underlying medical issues. New York law requires strict compliance with notice-of-claim statutes before a plaintiff may pursue state-law tort claims against municipal entities. Failure to meet these requirements can bar otherwise meritorious malpractice claims, as discussed in a recent New York case. If you were harmed by negligent treatment at a public hospital, it is advisable to consult a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to protect your rights.

Facts and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff was involuntarily admitted to a public hospital for psychiatric treatment and remained hospitalized for approximately one week. The hospitalization formed the basis of subsequent legal claims alleging improper medical and psychiatric care during the admission.

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a federal civil action asserting constitutional claims arising from the involuntary admission and treatment. The lawsuit named the public hospital and individual physicians as defendants and proceeded through discovery and pretrial scheduling over more than a year. Continue Reading ›

Rear-end motor vehicle collisions remain one of the most common causes of personal injury claims in New York, yet liability disputes frequently arise even when the facts appear straightforward. Courts are often asked to determine whether a trailing driver can overcome the presumption of negligence that applies in rear-end crashes. A recent decision from a New York court reinforces the legal standards governing these cases and clarifies the limited circumstances under which a defendant may avoid summary judgment on liability. If you were injured in a car accident, you should confer with a Syracuse personal injury attorney who can help clarify how these rules apply and what steps are necessary to protect a claim after a serious collision.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff commenced a personal injury action seeking damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff alleged that while operating her vehicle, she was struck from behind by a vehicle operated by the defendant driver and owned by a co-defendant.

Allegedly, following the commencement of the action, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The motion asserted that the plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped at the time of the impact and that the defendant driver failed to maintain a safe distance and speed, resulting in a rear-end collision. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice and wrongful death cases frequently turn on procedural rulings that determine whether claims will ever reach discovery or trial. Among the most consequential are motions addressing statutes of limitations and the manner in which courts evaluate early dismissal requests. A recent decision from a New York court emphasizes the importance of following proper motion practice and preserving a plaintiff’s opportunity to litigate factual disputes related to timeliness and continuous treatment. If you lost a loved one due to a delayed diagnosis, you should consider speaking with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to understand how procedural law may affect your case.

Facts and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff commenced an action individually and as the proposed administrator of a decedent’s estate seeking damages for medical malpractice, wrongful death, and related claims arising from the decedent’s medical care at a hospital and by treating physicians. The complaint alleged that departures from accepted medical practice contributed to the decedent’s injuries and eventual death.

Allegedly, after the defendants answered the complaint, certain hospital and physician defendants moved to dismiss the action on statute-of-limitations grounds pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5). The defendants also sought dismissal of a separate cause of action alleging emotional distress under CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a claim. Continue Reading ›

When injuries or death occur in a county-owned medical facility, the affected family often faces not only medical uncertainty but also complex procedural requirements governing claims against municipal entities. New York’s notice-of-claim rules operate on accelerated timelines, and failure to comply can bar claims that might otherwise be viable. A recent New York decision concerning treatment provided by a county hospital illustrates how courts evaluate accrual, continuous treatment, and late-notice applications in cases involving malpractice, negligence, and wrongful death. If you believe improper medical care in a public facility caused serious harm to a loved one, you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to safeguard your rights.

Facts of the Case and Procedural History

It is reported that the decedent was first admitted to the respondent county hospital in early September 2022 following injuries from a fall. During this initial admission, the hospital provided treatment for injuries related to the fall, and the decedent later returned to the facility for rehabilitation services. The decedent remained at the hospital through late September 2022, during which time a second fall allegedly occurred inside the facility. This event was followed by additional complications, further treatment, and ultimately surgical intervention to address the worsening condition.

Allegedly, after the decedent was discharged, the medical condition deteriorated significantly, and the decedent died from sepsis in mid-November 2022. The claimant later sought to pursue medical malpractice, negligence, and wrongful death claims against the county and its hospital, asserting that the hospital’s alleged failures in supervision, monitoring, and treatment contributed to the injuries and subsequent death. Continue Reading ›

Contact Information