Medical Malpractice

New York Trial Court Was Correct in Denying Motion to Vacate Dismissal of Medical Malpractice Case Due to Failure to Appear, According to Reviewing Court

Published on: June 13, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Reaching a successful verdict or favorable settlement in a Syracuse medical malpractice case is not easy. In addition to the factual requirements (which, at least to a large degree, must be presented through the testimony of expert witnesses) of proving such a claim, there are many procedural steps that must also be dealt with in an appropriate manner.

These procedural matters include the filing of the requisite paperwork within the statute of limitation period, the completion of discovery during the time allotted by law, and appearances at various hearings scheduled by the trial court. There are many pitfalls that await a litigant who seeks to represent himself or herself – or one who makes the mistake of retaining an attorney not well-versed in these requirements.

Some penalties for untimely action or failure to appear at a particular judicially scheduled event are met with repercussions that, while detrimental, do not serve to put an end to the plaintiff’s case. Sometimes, however, a procedural misstep can spell the end of the plaintiff’s attempt to seek fair compensation for damages caused by a negligent healthcare provider.

Denial of Summary Judgment in Medical Negligence Case Upheld on Appeal by New York Court

Published on: May 31, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

In a Syracuse medical malpractice lawsuit, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This means that he or she must be able to prove the elements of professional negligence, including a deviation from the acceptable standard of care and proximate causation between this breach of care and the injuries for which the plaintiff seeks monetary compensation, by a preponderance of the evidence.

Because issues of professional negligence typically involve matters that are beyond a layman’s knowledge, most malpractice cases involve the testimony of multiple expert witnesses, who are called upon to explain complex matters in a way that will help jurors resolve the issues. Often, the plaintiff and the defendant will each have experts, and those experts’ opinions may vary widely. Assuming that a case survives the summary judgment phase of litigation, it will be the jury’s job to decide which side has “made their case,” so to speak.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case appealed from the Supreme Court for Bronx County, the plaintiff was a woman who suffered from a large aneurysm in the artery behind her left eye. She received various treatment for this condition, including the placing of a stent and a balloon occlusion test performed by the defendant doctor. In response to the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim, the doctor sought summary judgment insofar as it concerned the plaintiff’s post-surgical treatment after the aforementioned medical procedures. The trial court denied the doctor’s motion, and he appealed.

New York Court Finds That Summary Judgment Was Erroneous in Birth Injury Malpractice Case

Published on: May 28, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

While mothers and infants generally fare much better during labor and delivery than they did in years past, Syracuse birth injuries still happen regularly. Obstetricians, anesthesiologists, nurses, and others are quick to point out that complications can arise even when healthcare workers “do everything right.”

However, these medical workers are human, and they don’t always “do everything right.” When things go wrong, the costs on the family can be staggering. Medical expenses, lost wage for the parent(s), lost earning potential for the child, and pain and suffering are all damages for which a malpractice victim can be financially compensated by the jury in a medical malpractice case – if the case makes it to trial.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a minor child who was born at the defendant hospital via an emergency cesarean section. The plaintiff’s complaint setting forth a claim for medical malpractice alleged that his birth occurred after a prolonged slowing of his heartbeat during delivery and that he suffered numerous injuries as a result from the defendant’s deviation from the accepted standard of care. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, urging the trial court to hold that the plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue material fact such that proceeding to trial was necessary.

New York Woman’s Medical Malpractice Claims Against Out-of-State Medical Providers Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction

Published on: May 21, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

One of the first questions that must be dealt with in a Syracuse medical malpractice case is that of jurisdiction. This is usually a fairly straightforward issue, as the plaintiff and his or her physicians or other attendant medical personnel typically all reside within the state in which the allegedly negligent medical treatment took place.

This is not always so, however. In such instances, there may be a plausible argument for jurisdiction in multiple states, or in multiple courts within a single state. Sometimes, the question is whether to file suit in state or federal court. An established medical malpractice lawyer can assist you in determining the best course of action if you or a loved one has been injured by a doctor or nurse’s mistake.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, arising in the Supreme Court, Kings County, the plaintiff was a woman who was involved in a New Jersey automobile accident in 2013. As a result of the wreck, the plaintiff was treated by various medical providers and was prescribed a certain medication. According to the woman’s complaint against several healthcare providers and drug manufacturers, she developed a condition known as “Stevens Johnson syndrome” as a result of the medication that she took following the car crash. The plaintiff’s prescription was allegedly filled in New York, although at least some of her medical care took place in New Jersey. She filed suit in 2014, seeking to recover money damages on several different legal theories, including medical malpractice, strict product liability, failure to warn, and breach of warranty.

New York Appellate Court Agrees with Plaintiff in Medical Malpractice Case That Doctor Should Submit to Additional Deposition

Published on: April 30, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

A Syracuse medical malpractice case begins with the plaintiff filing a lawsuit against the allegedly negligent doctor, hospital, or another medical provider. The defendant(s) then files an answer, addressing each of the allegations made by the plaintiff in his or her suit.

From there, the case typically proceeds to the discovery phase of litigation, a time during which each party has an opportunity to send written interrogatories and requests to produce documents to the other. These are usually followed up by depositions of the parties and their respective medical expert witnesses. If the parties cannot agree on the handling of the discovery phase of the litigation, it is likely that one or both parties will seek the court’s help, sometimes by a motion to compel.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiffs were a husband and wife who sued several defendants, including a hospital, a medical doctor, and a radiology group, asserting a claim for medical malpractice due to the defendants’ alleged negligence in the treatment of the male plaintiff and seeking monetary compensation for the plaintiffs’ damages resulting from the defendants’ conduct. During the pre-trial phase of the case, a dispute arose between the parties with regard to whether the defendant doctor should be compelled to attend a further deposition and answer certain questions regarding certain subsequent medical treatment of the male plaintiff.

Summary Judgment to Ambulance Company Affirmed by New York Appellate Tribunal

Published on: April 28, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Birth injuries caused by negligence during childbirth and delivery are, unfortunately, quite common. Just like surgeons and general practitioners, obstetricians and pediatricians sometimes make mistakes, and both mother and child can suffer serious, sometimes even fatal, consequences.

As with other types of Syracuse medical malpractice lawsuits, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence. Typically, the defendant will attempt to get the case dismissed prior to trial via summary judgment.

When this happens, the result usually depends on the strength of the parties’ respective medical expert witnesses. Unless there is a genuine issue of material fact presented by their affidavits, the court will likely rule in the defendant’s favor.

New York Court Affirms Summary Judgment to Doctors in Medical Malpractice Case Arising from Patient’s Death Due to Pulmonary Embolism

Published on: April 14, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

A doctor or healthcare provider’s failure to diagnose and/or properly treat a pulmonary embolism can result in a Syracuse surgical malpractice claim. Potentially life-threatening, a pulmonary embolism occurs when a blood clot (usually from another part of the body) blocks one of the pulmonary arteries in the lungs.

A pulmonary embolism can result in shortness of breath, chest pain, and cough; less common symptoms include irregular heartbeat, dizziness, sweating, swelling, and fever. If not promptly diagnosed or properly treated, a pulmonary embolism can cause serious injury or even death in some patients. Because surgery is one of the main causes of blood clots that result in pulmonary embolism, it is especially important that surgeons take measures to prevent, recognize, and/or treat such conditions in their patients.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recently decided case arising in the Supreme Court of New York County was the administratrix of a 49-year-old woman who died from a pulmonary embolism that was allegedly caused by bilateral deep vein thromboses in her legs. According to the plaintiff’s complaint against the defendants (a family medicine physician, a cardiologist, and others), the decedent’s condition developed after she underwent a two-day back surgery. Both the family medicine physician and the cardiologist consulted on the decedent’s care. They also allegedly reviewed certain electrocardiograms that showed T wave inversions. In the plaintiff’s view, the defendants deviated from good and accepted standards of medicine by failing to order additional testing in order to determine the cause of the decedent’s T wave inversion.

New York Court Holds that Failure-to-Diagnose Breast Cancer Medical Malpractice Claim Was Timely Filed

Published on: March 29, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Like other types of personal injury and wrongful death cases, claims for medical malpractice must be filed within a certain period of time (called the “statute of limitations”), or else the claimant forfeits his or her right to pursue fair compensation. While there a few exceptions to this general rule, these exceptions apply only to very limited situations. In all other circumstances, a would-be plaintiff’s claim will be dismissed as time-barred if not filed within the limitations period. Hence, it is very important to talk to Syracuse medical malpractice attorney sooner, rather than later, if you or a loved one has been the victim of medical negligence.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a malpractice lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of Orange County was a woman who had a mammogram at the defendant medical facility in April 2015. The defendant radiologist reviewed the plaintiff’s mammogram and prepared a report recommending that the plaintiff have a biopsy, but, apparently due to some miscommunication or a lack of communication, the plaintiff did not actually undergo a biopsy until November 2015. The biopsy indicated the presence of cancer.

The plaintiff’s suit sought monetary compensation for lack of informed consent and medical malpractice; more particularly, the plaintiff asserted that the defendants had been negligent in failing to diagnose her with breast cancer and in failing to give her timely notification of the results of the radiologist’s report recommending a biopsy. The defendants’ filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. The plaintiff filed an appeal, seeking review from the appellate tribunal.

Dismissal of Medical Malpractice Case Brought by Family Following Patient’s Death from Stroke and Heart Attack Affirmed by New York Court of Appeals

Published on: March 23, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Syracuse medical malpractice lawsuits often come down to a “battle of the experts.” Sometimes this happens during the pre-trial phase, in which the parties submit their respective expert witnesses’ statements in support of, or in opposition to, a motion by the defendant(s) for judgment as a matter of law. Unless the plaintiff’s expert opinion is such that it can effectively refute the defendant’s motion and the defendant’s evidence in support thereof, the plaintiff’s case may end before it reaches the trial phase.

In other situations, the case proceeds to a jury trial, and multiple experts testify. Each will likely offer a different opinion, and it will be up to the jury to resolve any conflicts in the testimony of these witnesses. If you believe that you have a claim for medical malpractice against a doctor or other health care provider, you should talk to an attorney who can assist you in the process of finding an appropriate expert witness to review your medical records and, if necessary, testify at trial.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs in a recent medical malpractice case arising in the Supreme Court of Kings County were the statutory wrongful death claimants of a 51-year-old man who died after being treated by the defendant medical providers several times over a multi-day period in 2009. The man had suffered with high blood pressure since his teens but had stopped taking his medication for hypertension about 6 months prior to his treatment by the defendants. When he first presented to the emergency room, he complained of a mild cough, chest pain, fever, chills, and malaise. He was admitted to the hospital and released three days later, returned the same day that he was released only to return the next day, and died about a week later after having experienced both a stroke and a heart attack.

Appellate Tribunal Affirms Summary Judgment in Favor of New York Doctor in Medical Negligence Case

Published on: March 18, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

In a Syracuse medical malpractice case, there are many steps between the act of negligence and a settlement or judgment in favor of the patient (or, if the patient died as a result of the malpractice, his or her family). One of the first steps is a review of the patient’s medical records by an expert witness. Under New York law, an expert’s opinion to the effect that the defendant medical provider failed to act in accordance with the acceptable standard of care is required in order for most medical negligence cases to be successful. If such an opinion is not forthcoming once the case proceeds to a certain point in the litigation, it is likely that the matter will be dismissed as to any defendants against whom the requisite expert’s opinion has been submitted.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent case was the administrator of the estate of a person who allegedly died as a result of the negligence of the defendants, a doctor and patient care facility. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit, acting both individually and as the administrator of the decedent’s estate, seeking to recover monetary damages for the decedent’s death. The Supreme Court of Bronx County dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint against the doctor after ruling that the doctor was entitled to summary judgment. The plaintiff then appealed the trial court’s decision to a higher tribunal.

The Court’s Decision on the Issues

The New York Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court’s decision. In order to be granted summary judgment in a medical malpractice lawsuit, the burden was on the defendant to convince the trial court that there were no genuine issues of material fact; only in the absence of triable factual issues was one party or the other to be granted judgment as a matter of law. Applying this standard to the case at bar, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence for the case against the doctor to proceed to trial.