Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog

New York Trial Court Lacked Jurisdiction to Set Aside Settlement Following Stipulation of Dismissal

Published on: July 15, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Under New York law, there are many different types of professional malpractice. For instance, a Syracuse medical malpractice case may assert that a doctor or hospital failed to follow the standard of care for a surgical procedure, or the issue may pertain to an allegedly inaccurate diagnosis or failure to diagnosis.

Cardiologists, chiropractors, dermatologists, and even dentists may find themselves as defendants in professional negligence lawsuits. The burden of proof rests with the plaintiff (the patient or his or her family, if they patient died or was rendered legally incompetent due to the alleged negligence), which means that he or she must be able to provide competent evidence as to the four elements of negligence: duty, breach of duty, damages, and causation.

Malpractice cases are often highly technical legal proceedings, requiring a number of expert witnesses and knowledge of the many statutes, case law holdings, and procedural rules applicable to such matters. It is, thus, very important that the plaintiffs in such cases retain an attorney to assist them in their endeavors.

New York Court Agrees that Summary Judgment to Manufacturer of Mixer-Grinder Was Appropriate in Butcher’s Product Liability Case

Published on: July 8, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

A Syracuse product liability case may involve one defendant, two defendants, or a long list of defendants. There may be a single theory of liability, or there may be multiple claims involving a myriad of legal theories.

One thing that is common to all product liability claims is that they demand an appropriate amount of time and attention in order to be successful; product makers fight hard against a finding of liability! A primary reason for this is the fear of manufacturers and others in the supply chain that, if one plaintiff is successful, it may open a floodgate to additional claims, potentially costing the business millions of dollars in payouts.

Therefore, defendants in these types of cases are typically very aggressive in their efforts to avoid being held liable for injuries caused by allegedly defective products. Often, this process includes a motion for summary judgment attempting to get the case dismissed before it reaches the consideration of a jury.

Despite Drug Treatment Center’s Hiring of Employee with Multiple Criminal Convictions, New York Appellate Division Finds Summary Judgement in Negligence Case Was Appropriate

Published on: June 26, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

There are a seemingly endless variety of ways in which a medical provider’s neglect and lack of concern for patient safety can lead to a Syracuse medical negligence case. In addition to cases involving a doctor’s failure to diagnose a serious illness within a reasonable amount of time or a surgeon’s neglect to obtain informed consent before performing a risky medical procedure, there are many other situations in which a patient can be hurt by an act of negligence committed by a hospital, doctor, or other healthcare worker.

Of course, results are seldom guaranteed in the medical field, and opinions can vary about what was, and what was not, negligence. Sometimes, it is up to the jury to makes these decisions, but courts can enter summary judgment on the issue in certain circumstances.

Because summary judgment effectively ends the plaintiff’s case, at least as to some claims, and/or some defendants, a court’s ruling on this matter is reviewable on appeal. The burden on appeal rests on the party seeking to disturb the lower court’s ruling; if the appellate tribunal is not convinced that a mistake was made, the trial court’s opinion will likely stand.

New York Appellate Tribunal Rules that Plaintiff’s Proffered Expert Testimony Was Properly Excluded in Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: June 22, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

One of the major differences in a Syracuse medical malpractice lawsuit and other types of negligence cases is the requirement that the plaintiff provide testimony from one or more expert witnesses. In almost all medical malpractices cases, a doctor or other healthcare professional must be willing to testify on the plaintiff’s behalf in order for him or her to prevail at trial.

There are many rules about which experts are qualified to testify and the scope of such testimony. Disputes arise frequently concerning these matters, with the trial court (and sometimes the appellate tribunals, as well) being called upon for resolution of the disagreements.

A person who has been hurt by a medical professional’s mistake should talk to an experienced medical malpractice attorney about the process of retaining an expert witness, filing a claim, and moving the case towards trial. It is important to note that not just any attorney can successfully handle a medical malpractice case, so it important to hire a firm who has experience in these types of cases.

New York Car Accident Involving Multiple Rear-End Collisions Should Not Have Been Resolved Via Summary Judgment

Published on: June 17, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

There seems to be a widely held belief that, in a rear-end collision, the driver in the second car is automatically at fault. While such a driver is usually held liable in such a situation, this is not necessarily the result in every case. It all comes down to the particular facts in the case at hand. For example, what if there was construction ahead and the first driver adhered to signage warning drivers to slow down, but the second driver did not?

What if a large animal (such a deer) ran into the path of the first vehicle, causing her to stop suddenly to avoid a dangerous crash? What if the second driver was on his or her phone and not paying attention? Sometimes such cases must be resolved by a jury, with each side making their respective arguments as to why the other was at fault.

Another potential scenario is that there wasn’t just one accident but several separate accidents that occurred in rapid succession. Who is to blame in those kinds of cases? Unfortunately, the answer is not always clear.

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.

Personal Injury Litigant Should Have Been Allowed to Depose Assailant’s Psychiatric Providers, Says Appellate Tribunal in New York

Published on: June 8, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Syracuse personal injury cases have many steps. Once an attorney has been contacted and an investigation has been made into the facts of the event giving rise to the litigation, the next step is to file a formal complaint in a court of law. After that, the case proceeds to the discovery phase.

Just as the name suggests, the discovery phase of litigation is the time during which each side is allowed an opportunity to learn more about his or her opponent’s case. Of course, there are limitations on the scope of such discovery, and disputes can arise regarding whether one party or the other has stepped over the line of what is acceptable.

The trial court controls the discovery phase of litigation, ruling upon the various motions of the litigants as the matter progresses. When a ruling is unfavorable, the affected party may be able to have the matter reviewed by a higher court (although, in some situations, the matter cannot be appealed until after the case has proceeded to a later phase of litigation, such as trial or disposition by summary judgment).

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.