Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog
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.
Outcome of the Case on Appeal
The New York Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court’s order. The court began by pointing out that the plaintiff was incarcerated at the time the doctor placed the stent and performed the balloon occlusion test and that, although the doctor instructed the plaintiff to follow up with him in two weeks, the plaintiff returned to prison and did not follow up. In support of his motion for summary judgment, the doctor had submitted an expert witness’s affidavit to the effect that the doctor had not departed from good and accepted medical care in the plaintiff’s treatment or, that, if he had, this was not the proximate cause of the injuries about which the plaintiff complained in her suit. The expert specifically opined that the doctor had only been a consulting physician and that, thus, it was the plaintiff’s primary medical team’s responsibility to arrange for further treatment.
However, the plaintiff had filed an expert’s opinion in opposition to the doctor’s motion, and this expert was of the opinion that the doctor had departed from the standard of care when he failed to arrange for a consultation with a neurologist and when he failed to discuss the findings of the balloon occlusion test with the plaintiff. The reviewing court agreed with the lower tribunal that this expert’s affidavit raised triable issues of fact and credibility such that summary judgment was not appropriate.
To Get Advice from a Medical Malpractice Lawyer
We all make mistakes. Drivers sometimes engage in careless behavior that causes a crash. Storeowners occasionally neglect the upkeep of their premises, resulting in slip and fall accidents. Doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers can fail to abide by the standard of care, causing significant injury to patients. If you believe that you have been hurt by an act of professional negligence, please understand that there is a procedure and timeline that must be followed in order to assert your legal rights. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano, LLP, our experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys are here to help you get started on your case. For a no-cost consultation, call us at 833-200-2000.