Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog

Court Discusses the Serious Injury Threshold in New York Car Accident Cases

Published on: January 4, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Pursuant to New York’s no-fault insurance law, people can only file civil claims for damages if they sustain serious injuries in a motor vehicle collision. As such, regardless of whether a party caused a car crash, they will not be deemed liable for damages unless the plaintiff can meet the serious injury threshold. In a recent decision issued in a car accident case, a New York court described what evidence is needed to demonstrate that a plaintiff suffered a serious injury as defined by the statute. If you were involved in a collision, it is smart to speak to a Syracuse personal injury lawyer to examine whether you may be able to recover damages.

The Subject Accident

Allegedly, the defendant was driving in the rain when he approached an intersection. He stopped at the intersection for several seconds to ensure that he could safely make a left turn. As he removed his foot from the brake, his car rolled forward and struck the plaintiff, who was walking in the crosswalk at the intersection. The car stopped moving immediately after it hit the plaintiff.

Reportedly, the plaintiff was transported to the hospital, where x-rays did not reveal any fractures. She complained of extreme pain, however, and later reported that she was unable to complete any of her daily activities. She underwent extensive treatment for pain and reduced mobility in her back and neck as well. She ultimately filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting negligence claims. The defendant conceded liability but moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that she suffered a serious injury as required to recover damages under New York law. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Liability for Three-Car Collisions

Published on: January 2, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

When drivers do not leave adequate room between their vehicles and the cars in front of them, they run the risk of causing a rear-end collision. In some instances, rear-end collisions have chain effects, causing a multi-car pile-up. Typically, however, the driver of the middle vehicle in a three-car accident caused by a rear-end crash will not be liable for harm suffered by its passengers. This was demonstrated recently in a ruling issued by a New York court in a car accident case. If you were injured in a motor vehicle accident, it is in your best interest to speak to a Syracuse personal injury lawyer to discuss what you must prove to recover damages.

The History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff sustained injuries in a collision that occurred when she was riding as an adult passenger on a school bus operated by the defendant driver and owned by the defendant company. The accident occurred when a person driving behind the bus struck the bus from behind, causing it to propel forward and strike the vehicle in front of it.

Reportedly, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants alleging their negligence caused her injuries. The defendants moved for dismissal via summary judgment, and the trial court granted their motion. The plaintiff then appealed. Continue Reading ›

Court Discusses Establishing Fraud Under New York Law

Published on: December 30, 2021 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Technological advances generally make cars increasingly safer and easier to drive. When such technology fails, though, it can have disastrous consequences. When a vehicle’s anti-collision technology does not operate as the manufacturer indicated it should, it may provide a basis to pursue claims against the manufacturer. While some claims may be successful, it is unlikely that fraud is one of them, as illustrated in a recent New York opinion. If you were hurt in a collision caused by a defect with your vehicle, you should confer with a Syracuse car accident lawyer to establish what damages you may be owed.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was driving a vehicle manufactured by the defendant when he was involved in a collision. He suffered significant injuries and filed a lawsuit against the defendant asserting multiple causes of action, including fraud. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, via a dealer in a showroom and through its website, advised the plaintiff that the vehicle’s autopilot feature would allow him to take a hands-off approach to driving.

Reportedly, he was advised that it possessed automatic steering and braking capabilities and could detect cars in adjacent lanes. The autopilot feature failed to activate when a car cut the plaintiff’s vehicle off, however, and he swerved into another lane and struck a vehicle the autopilot feature failed to detect. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s fraud claims, arguing the plaintiff failed to set forth a viable claim. The court ultimately agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s fraud claim. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Explains Comparative Fault in Car Accident Cases

Published on: December 24, 2021 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Typically, when a rear-end collision occurs, the second driver is deemed at fault. There are some exceptions, however, that would allow for the imposition of some degree of liability on the driver of the vehicle that was struck. One exception was recently discussed in an opinion issued by a New York court in a case in which the plaintiff sought summary judgment on the issue of comparative fault. If you were harmed in a collision, you might be owed damages, and you should speak to a Syracuse car accident lawyer to discuss your potential claims.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped at a red light when it was struck from behind by the defendant driver. Immediately after the impact, a vehicle driven by a police officer that worked for the defendant city struck the second car, causing it to again hit the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff, who suffered injuries in the collision, filed a lawsuit against the defendants. The defendant city asserted the affirmative defense of comparative negligence. The plaintiff then filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of comparative fault. The trial court denied the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Comparative Fault in Car Accident Cases

On appeal, the trial court ruling was affirmed. The appellate court explained that, under New York law, a driver approaching another car from behind has a duty to maintain a reasonably safe rate of speed and following distance, in consideration of the conditions present at that time, to avoid a collision. Accordingly, a rear-end collision with a vehicle that is stopping or stopped establishes, prima facie, the negligence of the operator of the second vehicle. As such, the second driver must rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent cause for the crash. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Federal Jurisdiction Over State Law Medical Malpractice Claims

Published on: December 18, 2021 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

It is not uncommon for people harmed by incompetent medical treatment to suffer other injuries at the hands of the parties responsible for their care. As such, they may assert medical malpractice claims along with other causes of action in a single lawsuit, usually in federal court. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, however. As such, if a plaintiff fails to demonstrate the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over their state law medical malpractice claims is proper, they may be dismissed. This was demonstrated recently in an opinion issued by a New York court. If you sustained losses due to incompetent medical care, you should contact a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to determine what causes of action you may be able to assert against your health care provider.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was admitted to a medical facility where he was administered a pain reliever. He subsequently developed bleeding in the intestinal tract that caused him to die on three occasions. He was revived each time and ultimately underwent life-saving surgery. He developed significant side effects after the surgery, however, including dementia, blurred vision, and mobility issues. He subsequently filed a federal lawsuit against the defendants, alleging numerous claims, including medical malpractice. The court then evaluated whether it had jurisdiction over his claims.

Federal Jurisdiction Over State Law Medical Malpractice Claims

The court noted that the plaintiff set forth state medical malpractice claims in his complaint. He failed, however, to assert facts demonstrating that the court had subject matter jurisdiction over such claims. The court explained that, as a federal court, it had limited jurisdiction, as established by 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1332. Pursuant to those statutes, federal courts can only exercise jurisdiction over matters in which a federal question is presented or where the plaintiff and defendants are citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Dismissal of Medical Malpractice Claims for Failure to Prosecute

Published on: December 12, 2021 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

People harmed by medical malpractice are often eager to litigate their claims. In some instances, though, a plaintiff will neglect to take action or move a case forward for several years. In such cases, the court may find it appropriate to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for failure to prosecute. In a recent opinion issued in a New York medical malpractice case, the court explained the factors for evaluating whether to dismiss a matter for failure to prosecute. If you suffered harm due to medical malpractice, it is smart to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible to discuss what claims you may be able to assert.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent sought treatment from the defendant doctor at the defendant medical center, which the federal government-owned and operated. The decedent subsequently suffered a myocardial infarction, which proved to be fatal. Her husband then filed a medical malpractice case against the defendants under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Reportedly, the plaintiff’s attorney withdrew, after which the court directed the plaintiff to obtain new counsel or otherwise indicate that he intended to pursue his claims per se. The plaintiff did not respond, however, even though the court warned him on two occasions that his case would be dismissed. As such, the plaintiff’s lawsuit was ultimately dismissed due to his failure to prosecute his case. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Notice Requirements in Medical Malpractice Cases Against Municipal Entities

Published on: December 6, 2021 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Many facilities that provide medical care are operated by the state or federal government. While patients harmed by negligent medical care at such facilities have the right to seek compensation for their losses through medical malpractice claims, they must comply with certain notice requirements. If they fail to provide timely notice, their claims may be dismissed, as illustrated by a recent New York ruling. If you were hurt by the negligence of your doctor, you have the right to pursue damages, and you should speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to evaluate your potential claims.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff lived in a state-owned facility. While he was there, he underwent surgical repair of a fracture in his right foot. He began to experience pain immediately after the surgery, but his requests for pain medication were denied. He continued to complain of pain, but his reports were largely disregarded. He ultimately underwent an evaluation, after which he was informed that the treatment that he was provided was improper, and he developed arthritis due to the negligent care. He subsequently instituted a lawsuit against the state, asserting numerous claims, including medical malpractice. The defendant then moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims.

Notice Requirements in Medical Malpractice Cases Against Municipal Entities

The defendant argued, among other things, that the plaintiff’s state law medical malpractice claims against it must be dismissed, as the plaintiff failed to comply with the Notice of Claim requirements, which were conditions precedent to filing suits against public corporations or their employees under New York municipal law. Continue Reading ›

Court Discusses the Tolling of the Statute of Limitations in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: November 27, 2021 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

People harmed by reckless health care providers have the right to seek compensation for their losses. They must do so in a timely manner, however, or their claims may be barred by the statute of limitations. While the statutory period may be tolled in some situations, a plaintiff bears the burden of proving such tolling is proper. If they cannot, their claims may be dismissed, as shown in a recent ruling issued in a New York medical malpractice case. If you were hurt due to negligently rendered medical care, you might be owed damages, and you should confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible to avoid waiving your right to recover compensation.

The Plaintiff’s Claims

Allegedly, in 2013, the plaintiff suffered injuries in a fall at a restaurant. She was then transported by ambulance to the defendant hospital, where she was treated by the defendant nurse and other parties. She presumably suffered harm due to the care she received from the defendant’s employees, as in 2015, she filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants. She ultimately discontinued her claims via stipulation with a reservation of her rights under CPLR 205(a).

It is reported that in 2017, she then commenced a lawsuit against the defendants, apparently pursuant to the six month extension of the statute of limitations under CPLR 205(a). The defendants moved to dismiss the claims against them as time barred. The court ultimately granted the defendant’s motion. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Evidence Sufficient to Defeat Summary Judgment in Malpractice Cases

Published on: November 20, 2021 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

A motion for summary judgment is a procedural tool that defendants in medical malpractice cases often use in an effort to persuade the courts to dismiss the claims against them rather than allowing them to proceed to trial. The courts will only grant a summary judgment in cases in which the plaintiff fails to establish the existence of a material factual dispute, however. As such, if the plaintiff offers any evidence that would support the assertion that the defendant may be liable for the plaintiff’s damages, summary judgment is improper. This was demonstrated recently in a ruling issued in a New York medical malpractice matter in which the court declined to adopt the defendant hospital’s assertion that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If you suffered harm due to incompetent care that you received in a hospital, you might be owed damages, and you should meet with a Syracuse hospital malpractice lawyer to assess your options for seeking compensation.

The Decedent’s Harm

It is reported that the decedent, who suffered from multiple sclerosis, was admitted to the defendant hospital with complaints of abdominal pain and distention. He underwent a test and was diagnosed with a pseudo-obstruction of the bowel and prescribed medication. He was evaluated numerous times during his admission due to worsening symptoms, but his treatment largely remained unchanged. Nine days after he was admitted, he died due to an internal hemorrhage and a tear of the iliac artery.

Allegedly, the decedent’s estate filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant hospital and the doctors who treated the decedent. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the court granted their motion. The plaintiff then appealed. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Establishing a Doctor’s Liability for a Patient’s Death

Published on: November 15, 2021 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

It is an unfortunate reality that a patient can visit a cardiologist, receive a clean bill of health, and subsequently suffer a fatal heart attack a few days later. In such instances, the inclination is most likely to believe that the cardiologist negligently performed its duties, and therefore should be liable for malpractice. As demonstrated in a recent New York ruling issued in a cardiology malpractice matter, however, that is not always the case. If you or your loved one sustained losses due to negligent treatment of a heart issue, you should speak to a Syracuse cardiology malpractice lawyer regarding your potential claims.

The Decedent’s Care

Reportedly, the decedent presented to the hospital with complaints of chest pain in July 2012. He underwent a heart catheterization that showed he suffered from a 75% narrowing of a coronary artery, which he was advised could be treated with medication. A week later, he visited the defendant’s cardiologist for a second opinion. The defendant recommended that the decedent continue to treat his heart issues with medication instead of an angioplasty.

It is alleged that in October 2012, the decedent underwent a stress test that was interpreted by a second cardiologist named as a defendant, who determined the decedent did not require emergent care. One month later, however, the decedent suffered a fatal heart attack. The plaintiff, his wife, commenced a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants, alleging they failed to properly diagnose and treat a blockage in the decedent’s heart, The defendants ultimately moved for summary judgment, and the court granted their motion. The plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›