Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog

Grounds for Granting a Motion for Reargument in a Medical Malpractice Case Discussed by New York Court

Published on: February 19, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Unfortunately, mistakes made during relatively low-risk medical procedures can cause devastating harm. Even in cases in which liability seems clear, however, defendants in medical malpractice cases will often deny that they caused the plaintiff to suffer harm and will seek dismissal via a motion for summary judgment. While the courts typically rule reasonably with regard to such motions, they are not invulnerable to mistakes. While parties cannot relitigate issues, they may be able to reargue them when it is clear the court committed an error, as demonstrated in a recent anesthesia malpractice case. If you were hurt by negligently administered anesthesia, it is advisable to consult a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your possible claims.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent surgery to repair a fractured ankle. During the procedure, his oxygen level dropped rapidly. The defendant anesthesiologist then administered an excessive dose of anesthesia which caused the plaintiff to go into an extended respiratory depression, causing him to suffer brain damage. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, arguing that his negligence harmed the plaintiff. The defendant moved for dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims by summary judgment.

It is reported that the trial court granted the motion as to the plaintiff’s claims that arose out of the improper administration of anesthesia on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to raise the issue. The plaintiff moved to reargue the issue and clarify what matters would proceed to trial. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion to reargue the issue, noting that it had inadvertently failed to recognize the fact that the plaintiff amended the bill of particulars to include claims regarding the negligent administration of anesthesia. As such, the court denied the defendant’s motion as it related to the claims arising out of the negligent administration of anesthesia. The defendant then appealed. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Sets Forth Grounds for Overturning a Verdict in a Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: February 16, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Most plaintiffs pursuing medical malpractice claims will rely on a jury rather than a judge to decide issues of liability and damages. As juries are comprised of human beings, though, they are not immune to mistakes, and in some cases, they fail to rule in accordance with the evidence. Luckily, the law allows parties who feel that a jury ruled improperly to seek a new trial or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Obtaining such relief is not easy, however, as demonstrated in a recent opinion set forth by a New York court in a medical malpractice case. If you suffered harm due to incompetent care rendered by a physician, you have the right to pursue claims for your losses, and it is smart to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

Background of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent was hospitalized due to a pulmonary embolism. He was subsequently diagnosed with cancer and later died. The plaintiff, the executor of his estate, filed a wrongful death and medical malpractice lawsuit naming the hospital and numerous doctors as defendants. The matter progressed to trial, and after the plaintiff presented her evidence, she settled with one of the defendants. The trial concluded, after which the jury found that while the first individually named defendant departed from the standard of care, the second had not. The plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict as to the second individually named defendant. The trial court denied her request, and she appealed.

Grounds for Overturning a Verdict in a Medical Malpractice Case

On appeal, the court expounded that a court may not set aside a jury’s verdict in favor of a defendant unless it finds that the evidence weighs so heavily in favor of the plaintiff that the jury could not have reached the verdict had it fairly interpreted the evidence. If a verdict aligns with a reasonable view of the evidence, though, the defendant is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted a reasonable view. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Explains the Elements of a Lack of Informed Consent Claim

Published on: February 13, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Many medical treatments carry some degree of risk. As such, doctors must fully advise patients of the potential side effects and adverse consequences of a treatment so that the patient can make an educated decision regarding whether to proceed. If a doctor fails to do so, they may be liable for the patient’s lack of informed consent. Recently, a New York court discussed the elements of a lack of informed consent claim in a matter in which the plaintiff asserted he suffered harm following orthopedic injections. If you were hurt due to the negligence of a radiologist, you might be able to recover compensation, and it is advisable to confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to determine what evidence you have to submit to establish fault.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff treated with the defendant podiatrist and defendant radiologist for pain caused by bone spurs. Per the defendant podiatrist’s referral, the defendant radiologist administered guided steroid injections into the back of the plaintiff’s feet. As a result of the injections, the plaintiff suffered torn Achilles tendons in both feet. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendants asserting claims of medical malpractice and lack of informed consent. The defendant later filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied their motions, and they appealed.

Elements of a Lack of Informed Consent Claim

The appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling. In New York, a plaintiff alleging medical malpractice due to a lack of informed consent has to prove that the defendant failed to inform the plaintiff of the reasonably foreseeable risks of the treatment and any alternative treatments and that a reasonable practitioner would have. The plaintiff must also prove that a person of reasonable prudence that is in the same position as the plaintiff would not have undergone the treatment had they been so informed and that the lack of informed consent proximately caused the plaintiff to suffer actual harm. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Grounds for Dismissing a Medical Malpractice Case Due to Delay

Published on: February 10, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

The New York legislature is wary of people filing medical malpractice lawsuits and then delaying the resolution of their claims. As such, it drafted a statute that allows defendants to compel a plaintiff to move a case forward within 90 days, otherwise, it may be dismissed. Defendants cannot use the law to benefit from delays they caused, however, as discussed in a recent ruling delivered in an OB-GYN malpractice matter. If you suffered harm due to the negligence of your OB-GYN, it is in your best interest to contact a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to assess what claims you may be able to pursue.

The Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that in 2012, the plaintiff underwent a fertility procedure that was performed by the defendant. In April 2015, she commenced a medal malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. In September of that year, issue was joined, and the defendant served the plaintiff with a demand for a bill of particulars, a notice of deposition of the plaintiff at an agreed-upon date and time, and discovery requests.

It is reported that the plaintiff did not respond. As such, in May 2017, the defendant served the plaintiff with a 90-day demand to file a note of issue. The parties’ attorneys had several discussions regarding the scheduling of the plaintiff’s deposition and set a date and time, but the defendant ultimately canceled the deposition. The plaintiff’s attorney sent a letter to the defendant’s attorney with a proposed scheduling order stating that a note of issue would be filed by December of 2017, but the defendant’s attorney did not respond. The parties had no communication until April 2019, when the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Proximate Cause in Car Accident Cases

Published on: February 7, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

In most Syracuse personal injury cases, the plaintiff will allege that the defendant acted negligently. Merely proving negligence is not sufficient to demonstrate liability, though. Instead, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s negligence proximately caused their harm, and if they do not, their claims may fail. This was demonstrated in a recent ruling issued by a New York court in a car accident case. If you were injured in a collision, it is smart to speak to a Syracuse personal injury lawyer to determine what evidence you must produce to recover damages.

The Plaintiff’s Accident and Allegations

It is reported that the plaintiff was riding his bicycle when he struck the side of the defendant’s bus. He sustained harm in the accident and subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant and the driver employed by the defendant. The case proceeded to trial, after which the jury determined that the defendants were negligent, but their negligence was not a significant factor in bringing about the accident. The plaintiff then filed a motion to set aside the jury’s verdict and for a judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively for a new trial. The trial court denied the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Establishing Proximate Cause

The appellate court ultimately denied the plaintiff’s appeal. It noted that the plaintiff failed to object to the verdict as inconsistent with the evidence prior to when the jury was discharged, and therefore waived his right to object on that basis. The appellate court elaborated that, regardless, the jury’s assessment that the defendants acted negligently but their negligence did not cause the collision was not against the weight of the evidence. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Evaluates Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Cases with Conflicting Expert Reports

Published on: February 4, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Expert testimony is essential in New York medical malpractice cases. Specifically, the success of a plaintiff’s claims may hinge on the strength of their expert’s opinion. Similarly, defendants often rely on expert opinions in support of their assertion that they should not be deemed liable for the plaintiff’s harm. In cases in which expert opinions conflict, the courts will typically deny any motions for judgment as a matter of law. If they do not, it may be grounds for reversal, as demonstrated in a recent ruling issued in a New York hospital malpractice action. If you were injured due to negligent care in a hospital, it is smart to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer about what evidence you need to recover damages.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent visited the emergency department of the defendant hospital with complaints of swelling in her legs. The defendant doctor diagnosed her with peripheral vascular disease and discharged her. The decedent’s condition initially improved, but nine days later, she visited a second emergency department, again complaining of swelling in both legs. An ultrasound showed that she had acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in both legs.

Reportedly, shortly after the examination, she suffered a cardiac arrest and died. An autopsy later revealed DVT to be the cause of her death. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendants, asserting medical malpractice and wrongful death claims. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted their motion, after which the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Evidence Needed to Establish a Non-Negligent Reason for a Rear-End Collision

Published on: February 1, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

When rear-end collisions occur, it is presumed that the party that struck another motorist from behind is at fault. The second motorist can refute this presumption by producing evidence showing a non-negligent reason for the crash. If they cannot, however, judgment should be granted in favor of the plaintiff as a matter of law. The evidence needed to defeat a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit arising out of a rear-end collision was the topic of a recent ruling issued by a New York court. If you were hurt in a crash caused by another driver, you might be owed damages, and it is advisable to meet with a Syracuse personal injury lawyer promptly.

The Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was operating a scooter in the right lane of a highway and was followed by a bus driven by the defendant. As they approached an intersection, the plaintiff moved into the left lane of traffic, after which the defendant moved into the left lane as well and struck the plaintiff. The plaintiff suffered severe injuries in the crash and filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant. After discovery closed, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion and granted the defendant’s, after which the plaintiff appealed.

Evidence Needed to Establish a Non-Negligent Reason for a Rear-End Collision

On appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court order to the extent that it granted the defendant’s motion. The appellate court explained that under New York law, a rear-end crash with a vehicle that is stopped or stopping demonstrates a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the second driver. As such, the second driver must provide a non-negligent reason for the accident to rebut the inference of negligence. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Proving Medical Malpractice Caused a Person’s Death

Published on: January 18, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

If a person suddenly dies shortly after a medical procedure, their surviving family members may be inclined to think their demise was caused by incompetent medical care. Belief alone is not sufficient to establish liability for medical malpractice, however. In other words, a plaintiff must produce sound evidence showing that a defendant medical provider caused a person’s harm in order to recover damages, as discussed in a recent ruling issued by a New York court in a medical malpractice matter. If you lost a loved one due to negligent medical care, you have the right to pursue claims against their provider, and it is advisable to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to assess your potential claims.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant doctor performed a splenectomy on the decedent to address her low platelet count. During the procedure, he noticed she had a large gall stone and removed her gallbladder. Approximately five weeks after the surgery, she was admitted to the hospital with a pulmonary embolism. During her admission, she was diagnosed with an E. coli infection in her surgical wounds as well. She was discharged, and her infection eventually resolved.

Allegedly, approximately two years later, the decedent died due to natural causes. The plaintiff, the decedent’s husband, filed lack of informed consent and medical malpractice claims against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion seeking dismissal via summary judgment, and the court granted the motion. The plaintiff then appealed. Continue Reading ›

Court Discusses Res Ipsa Loquitor in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: January 16, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

In many medical malpractice cases, the plaintiff can pinpoint the precise acts that led to their harm. In some matters, though, the plaintiff will rely on the fact that the harm they suffered would not have occurred absent negligence, in support of their assertion that the defendant committed medical malpractice. This theory, known as res ipsa loquitor, is valid under New York law, as shown in a recent ruling issued in a surgery malpractice case. If you suffered harm at the hands of a surgeon, it is prudent to confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer regarding what evidence you must produce to establish liability.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital for a surgical procedure on his spine. After the surgery, the plaintiff felt pain in his left knee. A subsequent examination revealed that he tore a tendon in his quadricep. He then brought medical malpractice claims against the defendant hospital and the doctors who treated him during his admission, alleging that they negligently dropped him during the surgery, causing his knee injury. The defendants moved for summary judgment, but the court denied their motion. They then appealed.

Res Ipsa Loquitor in Medical Malpractice Cases

The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The appellate court explained that while the defendants established they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law by producing an expert affidavit stating they did not depart from the applicable standards of care, the plaintiff adequately rebutted their assertions. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Orders a New Trial in a Medical Malpractice Case Due to Trial Court’s Preclusion of Expert Testimony

Published on: January 14, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Expert testimony is essential in a medical malpractice case, and without it, a plaintiff most likely cannot establish liability or damages. As such, if the court refuses to allow a plaintiff’s expert to testify, it will most likely cripple their case. While there may be grounds for precluding some of an expert’s testimony, barring it all together is not favored, and such actions may be reversed on appeal, as demonstrated in a recent New York medical malpractice case. If you sustained losses due to the incompetence of a doctor, it is wise to contact a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your options for seeking damages.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Allegedly, the plaintiff visited the defendant hospital when she was 21 weeks pregnant. The defendant doctor diagnosed her with inevitable abortion and potential chorioamnionitis, which is an inflammation of tissue in the uterus caused by an infection. She opted not to terminate the pregnancy. She was evaluated two additional times over the following day and again diagnosed with inevitable abortion but was advised that chorioamnionitis was unlikely. She then opted to induce labor to expedite the inevitable abortion.

Reportedly, the plaintiff was induced and gave birth to a stillborn child, A study of the fetal tissue did not reveal evidence of chorioamnionitis. The plaintiff then filed medical malpractice and lack of informed consent claims against the defendants. The case eventually proceeded to trial, and the court precluded the plaintiff’s expert from testifying, as some of his proposed testimony fell outside of the scope of his report. The jury found in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiff moved to vacate the judgment and order a new trial. The trial court denied the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›