Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog

New York Court Discusses Proving Vicarious Liability in a Car Accident Case

Published on: October 5, 2021 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Many people have jobs that require them to operate motor vehicles. When people cause collisions while they are working, their employers may be deemed vicariously liable for any damages sustained. A plaintiff in a car crash case must prove liability to recover compensation, however, and if they cannot, their claims may be dismissed, as discussed in a recent New York ruling. If you suffered injuries in a collision, you might be owed compensation, and it is in your best interest to meet with a Syracuse car accident lawyer to discuss your possible causes of action.

The Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s vehicle collided with a postal van that was parked on the side of a one-way street. The crash occurred when the plaintiff was attempting to navigate a turn. The plaintiff sustained damages due to the crash and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the federal government pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (the Act). The case proceeded to trial, and following an evidentiary hearing, the judge found that the plaintiff had not met her burden of proof with regards to the elements of her negligence claim and ruled that the government was not liable for the accident.

Proving Liability in a Car Accident Case

The Act allows parties to pursue personal injury claims against the United States for the negligence of a government employee acting within the scope of their employment. Pursuant to the Act, the courts must examine state law to determine whether the government is liable for harm caused by its employees. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses the Assumption of the Risk Defense in Personal Injury Matters

Published on: September 26, 2021 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Horses are often thought of as gentle giants, and many people living in New York take pleasure in riding them. Even the most well-trained horses can be unpredictable, though, and there is an inherent risk in horseback riding. As such, a person that suffers harm while riding a horse may have difficulty proving that their harm is compensable. Recently, a New York court issued an opinion discussing the assumption of the risks that accompany riding horses in a case in which the defendant argued it could not be deemed responsible for the plaintiff’s harm. If you were hurt while engaging in a recreational activity, it is in your best interest to speak to a Syracuse personal injury lawyer regarding what damages you may be owed.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Allegedly, the plaintiff visited the defendant ranch to go on a horseback ride. Prior to the ride, she signed numerous documents, including an assumption of risk form. She subsequently embarked on two rides. On her second ride, a wrangler horse from another group became loose. The wrangler horse bumped the plaintiff’s horse and pulled the plaintiff’s reins from her hands. She held onto the saddle, but as the horse began to run, she fell, suffering a broken rib and arm and a contusion to her hip.

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in which she argued that the failure to warn her of the risk of a stampede or to prevent or mitigate the stampede constituted negligence. The defendant moved for the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims through summary judgment, arguing that she assumed the risk of harm. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Comparative Negligence in Car Accident Cases

Published on: September 20, 2021 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Car accidents occur regularly in New York, and many people injured in collisions will seek compensation from the driver they deem responsible for the accident. It is not uncommon for a defendant in a car crash case to argue that the plaintiff actually caused the accident, and therefore, the plaintiff’s claims should be denied. While comparative negligence is a valid defense, it is not grounds for dismissing a plaintiff’s claims at the pleading stage, as explained in an opinion recently issued by a New York court in a car accident case. If you were injured by a negligent driver, it is smart to meet with a Syracuse car accident lawyer to discuss your potential claims.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was operating a motorbike when he was struck by a car driven by the defendant. The defendant driver was reportedly driving at an excessive speed in an attempt to complete her job duties for the day when she made a sudden left turn without using her signal, cutting off the plaintiff. The plaintiff suffered critical injuries in the collision and subsequently filed a lawsuit in federal court asserting negligence claims against the defendant driver and her employer.

Allegedly, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asking the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims, arguing in part that he was comparatively negligent and, therefore, could not recover compensation. The motion was referred to a magistrate judge, who recommended it be denied. The defendants filed objections to the recommendation. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Explains Shifting Burdens of Proof in Birth Injury Cases

Published on: September 16, 2021 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

In New York birth injury cases, the success of a plaintiff’s claims hinges not on whether the plaintiff can demonstrate they suffered harm but whether they can link that harm to the defendant’s acts or omissions. If they can, they may be awarded damages, but if they cannot, their claims may be dismissed via summary judgment. Recently, a New York court set forth an opinion explaining each party’s burden of proof in birth injury cases, in a matter in which it ultimately denied the defendant’s motion for dismissal. If your child sustained injuries at birth due to the negligence of a health care provider, you should speak to a Syracuse birth injury lawyer about what evidence you must produce to recover compensation.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the mother presented to the defendant hospital when she was 39 weeks pregnant. She reported contractions and a substantial loss of fluid earlier that morning. She was admitted to the hospital, after which the defendant obstetrician was her attending physician. The infant failed to descend through the birth canal, and a c-section was performed later that afternoon.

Allegedly, the following day the child exhibited twitching in her right eye, torticollis, and other symptoms. Testing showed that she suffered an infarct and hemorrhaging in her brain. As a result, she sustained permanent partial right-sided paralysis. The mother filed a lawsuit against the defendants, averring their negligence caused the infant to sustain a birth injury. The defendants moved for dismissal of the mother’s claims via summary judgment, but the trial court denied the motion. The defendant then appealed. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Pursuing Damages for Medical Malpractice Committed by Federal Employees

Published on: September 11, 2021 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Delays in obtaining an accurate diagnosis can have grave consequences. As such, doctors who carelessness neglect to provide their patients with a timely diagnosis should be held accountable. A plaintiff harmed by a doctor’s inattentive care can often recover damages for medical malpractice, but if the doctor was a federal employee, the plaintiff must provide adequate notice of the claim prior to filing a lawsuit. The obligations imposed on plaintiffs pursuing claims against medical professionals that are government employees were the topic of a recent opinion issued in a New York primary care malpractice case. If you suffered harm due to the negligence of your primary care physician, it is in your best interest to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff complained of painful urination, foul-smelling urine, and other urological symptoms to the defendant primary care physician on numerous occasions. At the time he was experiencing symptoms, the plaintiff was living in a federal facility, and the defendant physician was a federal employee. Despite his complaints, the defendant did not perform a urine culture or refer the plaintiff to a specialist. When he ultimately went to a specialist a year and a half later, he was diagnosed with Stage IV prostate cancer.

It is alleged that the cancer then spread to his spine, causing him to be paraplegic. He subsequently filed medical malpractice claims against the defendant physician and negligent hiring claims against the defendant facility, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (the Act). The defendants then moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims. Continue Reading ›

Court Explains Factors Considered in Evaluating Whether to Vacate a Verdict in a New York Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: September 5, 2021 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

One of the key components of medical malpractice cases is the standard of care. Specifically, a plaintiff must establish that applies to the allegedly negligent health care provider and provide expert testimony explaining the manner in which the defendant breached the standard. In cases in which the parties produce conflicting evidence regarding what standard applies, the jury is free to accept either party’s assertion. As discussed in a recent opinion issued in a New York radiology malpractice case, the adoption of one expert’s opinion over the other may not constitute grounds for reversal. If you were harmed while undergoing diagnostic imaging, it is wise to speak to a skilled Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent a diagnostic imaging test at the defendant hospital. Prior to the test, an IV was placed in her hand, and during the test, CT contrast media was administered to her at a rate of 1.3 ccs pers second. The contrast media subsequently leaked from her veins into her surrounding tissues, causing her to suffer numerous complications, including compartment syndrome, which required a surgical repair.

It is reported that she subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant hospital and the defendant radiologist who administered the test. As to the defendant radiologist, she alleged that he deviated from the standard of care by administering the contrast media at a flow rate higher than 1.0 ccs per second. At trial, the parties submitted conflicting expert testimony regarding what was required under the applicable standard of care. The jury ultimately found in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

Court Explains Establishing Liability in a New York Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: August 28, 2021 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

The standard of care imposed on medical professionals is beyond the understanding of most laypeople, and parties in medical malpractice cases will often rely on reports from medical experts to support their positions. Thus, the success of a plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim often hinges on which party’s expert offers a more compelling opinion. A plaintiff’s expert’s opinions must be based on fact and sound reasoning, however; otherwise, they will be deemed insufficient to demonstrate a defendant’s liability, as illustrated in a recent New York ruling issued in a proctology malpractice case. If you were harmed by a negligent proctologist, you should speak to a Syracuse proctologist malpractice attorney to discuss what evidence you must produce to recover damages.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff suffered from rectal bleeding with bowel movements. He was subsequently diagnosed with hemorrhoids. He was then treated with the defendant, who ultimately recommended a hemorrhoidectomy. The defendant reported that the procedure went well, and all three of the defendant’s hemorrhoids were reduced. In the days that followed, however, the plaintiff began to experience rectal bleeding and fecal leakage. He eventually filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging he departed from the good and accepted practice of medicine, thereby causing the plaintiff to suffer harm. Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment.

Establishing Liability in a Medical Malpractice Case

The court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. The court explained that a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action must prove that the defendant deviated from the accepted community standards of the practice of medicine and that the deviation proximately caused the plaintiff’s harm. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Reverses Summary Judgment in a Primary Care Malpractice Case

Published on: August 20, 2021 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

In medical malpractice cases, defendants will often try to avoid the costs associated with protracted litigation by seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims prior to trial via motions for summary judgment. If the court finds that a defendant has adequately demonstrated the right to judgment in its favor as a matter of law, the court will grant the motion. If a court rules improperly, however, a plaintiff can argue that the ruling should be reversed. Recently, a New York appellate court discussed when summary judgment is appropriate in a case arising out of primary care malpractice. If you sustained injuries due to incompetent medical care, you should speak to a knowledgeable Syracuse primary care malpractice attorney to evaluate your options for seeking compensation.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant, who was the plaintiff’s primary care physician, failed to diagnose the plaintiff’s ulcerative colitis in a timely manner. Due to the delay, he suffered a perforated colon which required a permanent ileostomy. Thus, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, asserting his negligence caused the plaintiff’s harm. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to establish the elements of his claim. The court found in favor of the defendant and granted the motion, after which the plaintiff appealed.

Determining Whether Summary Judgment is Appropriate in a Medical Malpractice Case

The appellate court reversed the trial court ruling. It noted that a defendant that files a motion for summary judgment in medical malpractice case bears the burden of demonstrating that he or she did not depart from the accepted and good practice of medicine and that any such alleged deviation did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s harm. In order to sustain this burden, the defendant must rebut any allegations set forth in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Liability in Rear-End Car Accident Cases

Published on: August 13, 2021 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

In many car accident cases, proving liability can be difficult. In some collisions, though, it seems as if liability is clear. For example, in rear-often crashes, there is generally a presumption that the second driver is responsible. While that is generally true, it is not an irrefutable assumption, as demonstrated in a recent New York opinion issued in a case arising out of a rear-end collision. If you sustained harm in a car accident, it is prudent to meet with a Syracuse car accident attorney to discuss your options for seeking damages.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, a commercial truck driver, was driving a truck for his employer on a New York highway. He was stopped in traffic when he was suddenly struck from behind by another commercial truck. He did not hear brakes or tires screeching prior to the impact. After the crash, he got out and spoke with the defendant driver, who was operating a commercial truck on behalf of the defendant company.

Allegedly, the defendant driver apologized and stated it was his first year driving commercial trucks. The plaintiff felt no pain initially, but subsequently developed pain in his back and neck. He subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging the defendant driver was negligent and the defendant company was vicariously liable for his negligence. After the parties completed depositions, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of the defendants’ negligence. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Diversity Jurisdiction in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: August 10, 2021 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

People who suffer injuries generally have the right to pursue claims against the parties responsible for their harm, with or without the assistance of attorneys. Some claims, like those arising out of medical malpractice, are complex, however, and parties that attempt to seek compensation for medical negligence without legal counsel may not be able to set forth pleadings sufficient to demonstrate they are entitled to damages. This was demonstrated in a recent opinion issued by a New York Court in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s anesthesia malpractice claims due to lack of jurisdiction. If you suffered harm due to negligently administered anesthesia, it is smart to retain a skilled Syracuse anesthesia malpractice lawyer to assist you in pursuing claims against the parties that caused your injuries.

The Plaintiff’s Claims

It is reported that the plaintiff suffered an injury to his right hand that required a surgical repair. He was admitted to the defendant hospital, which is located in New York, to undergo the procedure, but alleged that he was not provided anesthesia. As such, he suffered intense pain. He further asserted he developed depression and a sleep disorder after the surgery. He filed a complaint against the defendant in federal court, asserting a medical negligence claim. He was not represented by a lawyer when he filed the complaint. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims on the grounds the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. The court agreed and dismissed the complaint.

Diversity Jurisdiction in Medical Malpractice Cases Filed in Federal Court

The court explained that the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim against the defendant failed because the court lacked jurisdiction over the claim as it arose under state law. In New York, a claim sounds in medical malpractice when the conduct in question constitutes medical treatment or bears a significant relationship to the rendering of medical care by a licensed professional. In the subject case, the plaintiff’s claims related to treatment he was provided at the defendant hospital, and therefore, were considered claims for medical malpractice.

The court stated that medical malpractice claims arise under state law, and federal courts generally will not exercise original jurisdiction over such matters unless there is complete diversity between the parties. No plaintiff and no defendant can be citizens of the same state for complete diversity to be present. In the subject case, the court pointed out that the plaintiff and the defendant hospital were both citizens of New York. Thus, complete diversity did not exist, and the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. Continue Reading ›