Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog
Medical malpractice cases often require plaintiffs to prove not only that a deviation from the standard of care occurred but also that the deviation caused injury or death. These claims hinge on expert opinions and the ability to rebut evidence presented by the defense. A recent New York case demonstrates the critical role of expert testimony in medical malpractice litigation. If you or a loved one were harmed by potential medical negligence, consulting an experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorney is essential.
Factual and Procedural History
It is alleged that in November 2013, the decedent was diagnosed with a 5.1 cm abdominal aortic aneurysm and subsequently underwent an endovascular aneurysm repair procedure. The surgery included the placement of a stent graft to manage the aneurysm. Over the following years, the decedent’s condition progressed, and additional intervention became necessary due to a Type IA endoleak—a known complication where blood flow persists into the aneurysm sac.
Reportedly, the decedent was referred to the defendant doctor, who advised her of the risks and need for open surgical repair of the endoleak. The procedure occurred in March 2016 and was performed by the defendant and a surgical team. During the surgery, the decedent suffered a splenic laceration, which required an emergent splenectomy, and a pancreatic injury that was subsequently repaired by another surgeon. Postoperatively, the decedent developed complications, including pancreatitis and infection, which ultimately led to her death on June 10, 2016, following weeks of intensive care.
The plaintiff, acting as the administratrix of the decedent’s estate, initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant doctors and medical facility. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants deviated from accepted standards of medical care by causing the splenic and pancreatic injuries during surgery, failing to manage the postoperative complications, and not timely referring the decedent to an infectious disease specialist. The plaintiff further alleged that these deviations proximately caused the decedent’s death. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they adhered to accepted medical standards in performing the surgery and that the decedent’s complications were known risks of the procedure.
Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Cases
Under New York law, a defendant physician must make a prima facie showing that there was no departure from the standard of care or that any departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s injuries. This burden is typically met through expert testimony.
The defendants submitted an expert affirmation from a board-certified vascular surgeon, who opined that the splenic and pancreatic injuries were known and unavoidable complications of open surgical repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm. The expert further stated that the surgical team acted appropriately in addressing the complications, including performing the emergent splenectomy to stabilize the patient. Additionally, he concluded that the decedent’s postoperative care, including monitoring in the intensive care unit, was managed in accordance with accepted medical standards and that the decedent’s death was not caused by any deviation from care.
In opposition, the plaintiff submitted an expert affidavit, referred to as “Expert A,” who asserted that the splenic injury represented a deviation from the standard of care. However, the court noted that the plaintiff’s expert failed to provide specific reasoning as to why the splenic injury in this case was not a known complication. The court emphasized that an expert opinion cannot rely solely on the occurrence of an injury to infer negligence, as known complications can occur even in the absence of malpractice.
The court found that the plaintiff’s expert did not sufficiently rebut the defendants’ evidence or demonstrate a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff’s claims relied heavily on the outcome of the surgery rather than evidence that the defendants departed from the standard of care during the procedure.
As such, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims of medical malpractice. The court held that the defendants met their burden of establishing that they adhered to accepted medical standards and that the complications suffered by the decedent were unavoidable risks of the procedure. The plaintiff’s expert failed to provide adequate evidence to rebut the defendants’ prima facie showing, and as a result, the case was dismissed.
The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for lack of informed consent, as the plaintiff had explicitly stated in the bill of particulars that no such claim was being made.
Speak to an Experienced Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney
Medical malpractice claims require compelling evidence and expert testimony to succeed. If you or a loved one suffered injuries or complications due to medical treatment, the Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can evaluate your case and provide the strong representation you need. Contact us today at 833-200-2000 or visit our website to schedule a consultation.