Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog

Plaintiffs in Birth Injury Case Were Not Entitled to Relief from Defense Verdict, According to New York Appellate Court

Published on: March 25, 2019 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

A Syracuse medical malpractice case can have many issues and may take several years to ultimately be decided. While this can be daunting to a would-be plaintiff, this does not mean that a claim against a careless doctor or other medical professional should not be pursued. If you believe that you or a loved one has been hurt by a doctor’s mistake, the best course of action is to talk to an attorney about your case as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiffs were the parents of a minor child who allegedly suffered certain injuries as a result of the negligence of the defendant doctors and medical clinic during labor and delivery. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a defense verdict. The plaintiff made an immediate oral motion seeking a mistrial on the basis of substantial juror confusion. The trial court granted the motion. Thereafter, the defendants made a post-trial motion to reinstate the verdict. The trial court denied the motion, but the appellate court granted the motion and reinstated the verdict. The plaintiffs then made a post-trial motion to set aside the verdict in the interest of justice. The trial court denied the motion, and the plaintiffs appealed.

New York Medical Malpractice Case Involving Finger Amputation Survives Motion for Summary Judgment

Published on: March 20, 2019 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

When it comes to issues in a New York medical malpractice lawsuit, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant’s deviation from the applicable standard of care was the proximate cause of his or her damages.

In many medical negligence lawsuits, one or more of the defendants may seek judgment as a matter of law via a summary judgment motion. When this happens, the burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a man who was involved in an accident in which a log fell on his hand in 2009. He was treated by the defendant doctors (employees of the defendant medical group) at the defendant hospital and released the following day. A few days later, he was seen for a checkup, in which he was checked by a physician’s assistant. About a week later, he returned to the doctor’s office and was told that his index finger “had died.” He underwent an amputation of his finger thereafter.

New York Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment in Rear-End Collision Case

Published on: March 13, 2019 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

In a Rochester or Syracuse rear-end collision, there is a presumption that the person driving the automobile that ran into the back of the other was a fault in the accident. While there are some circumstances in which the defendant in such a case may be able to avoid liability, the burden is on him or her to prove that there was some reason – other than his or her negligence – for the collision.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a woman who filed suit against the defendants, the owner and the operator of a certain automobile, seeking compensation for injuries she allegedly suffered in a rear-end collision. The defendants sought summary judgment, averring that the plaintiff had not sustained a “serious injury” as that term is defined under New York Insurance Law § 5102(d) (including the categories of significant limitation of use, permanent consequential limitations of use, and 90/180 days). The plaintiff also sought summary judgment, asking the court to rule in her favor both the issue of serious injury and negligence.

The Supreme Court of Niagara County partially granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff sought review from the intermediate appellate court.

New York Woman Wins Slip and Fall Lawsuit Against Landlord

Published on: March 6, 2019 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

In a New York “slip and fall” negligence case, the plaintiff must be able to prove that the defendant breached a duty of care owed to him or her, proximately causing the damages for which he or she seeks monetary compensation. Because New York is a pure comparative negligence state, it is likely that the defendant in such a case will try to place as much fault as possible on the plaintiff. Under the doctrine of pure comparative fault, the plaintiff’s own fault will not bar recovery, but it will reduce the damages that are recoverable in proportion to the plaintiff’s own negligence.

In other words, if the jury finds that the plaintiff is entitled to $50,000 in monetary damages for his or her injuries suffered in a fall but determines that he or she was 50% at fault in the accident, the plaintiff will only receive $25,000.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a woman who filed suit against the defendant landlord in the Supreme Court for Niagara County, asserting a cause of action for negligence. According to the plaintiff, she slipped and fell outside her apartment building due to ice that the defendant had failed to remove. The plaintiff’s suit seeking compensatory damages for her personal injuries proceeded to a jury trial.

In Medical Malpractice Case Arising from Pelvic Surgery, New York Appellate Court Says Summary Judgment to Defendants Was Proper

Published on: February 27, 2019 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

In a New York medical malpractice lawsuit, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove four separate and distinct elements: that the defendant healthcare provider owed a certain standard of care to the plaintiff patient, that this duty was breached, that the plaintiff suffered damages, and that the defendant’s breach of the duty of care was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages.

The plaintiff must provide expert testimony as to each of these elements. In the absence of such proof, the plaintiff’s case will fail, and judgment will be entered for the defendant.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a woman who filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant medical providers, claiming that she had suffered personal injuries due to the defendants’ negligence in performing pelvic surgery. In response, the defendants submitted evidence that they alleged showed that the plaintiff’s injury was due to a known risk that could occur even with competent surgical care. The Supreme Court of New York County granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.

New York Appellate Court Says Medical Malpractice Case Should Not Have Been Dismissed, Despite Failure to Depose Doctor According to Discovery Schedule

Published on: February 25, 2019 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Filing a Syracuse medical malpractice lawsuit is a complex endeavor that requires strict compliance to a great many procedural rules. While there may be limited instances in which compliance with a particular requirement may be excused under the circumstances of a given case, this is by far the exception rather than the rule. The burden is usually on the plaintiff not only to prove his or her case but also to convince the court that an exception should be made if a deadline was missed or another procedural rule was not complied with.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was the administratrix of the estate of a woman who allegedly died due to the negligence of the defendant hospital. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit against the defendant, and the trial court entered an order setting forth the discovery obligations of the parties. Although a particular doctor’s deposition was supposed to have taken place by a certain date, this apparently did not happen. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to New York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules 3126(3). The Supreme Court for New York County entered an order granting the defendant’s motion and dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff sought review from the intermediate appellate court of New York.

New York Appellate Division Grants Summary Judgment to Hospital in Case Alleging Bedsore Was Caused by Medical Negligence

Published on: February 20, 2019 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Medical malpractice is rampant in New York and elsewhere in the country. However, unless an injured person (or the estate of a deceased patient) files a timely complaint for medical negligence and is able to offer proof from a competent medical expert witness regarding the standard of care and the defendant doctor or hospital’s deviation therefrom, the injured person or his or her family will not be able to recover monetary compensation.

Thus, it is very important to talk to a knowledgeable New York medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible if you suspect that you or a loved one has been the victim of negligence by a medical professional.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was the administrator of a woman who developed a severe sacral decubitus ulcer (i.e., a pressure ulcer or “bedsore”) while under the care of the defendant hospital. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, the development of the ulcer was due to the defendant’s negligence. The defendant, however, claimed that the decedent’s ulcer was unavoidable under the circumstances and filed a motion seeking summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim against it.

New York Appellate Court Reinstates Labor Law Claim in Construction Accident Lawsuit

Published on: February 13, 2019 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Syracuse construction accident lawsuits can be challenging. They typically involve multiple parties and multiple theories of liability. It is important to have quality legal representation if you have been hurt on a job site due to the negligence of a property owner, general contractor, or subcontractor.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case appealed from the Supreme Court of Niagra County, New York, the plaintiff was a man who fell through a hole in a subfloor while performing framing work on a residential construction project. At the time of his injury, the plaintiff was working for a separate contractor, who was not a party to the lawsuit.

The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants, the owner of the property and a contractor who worked on the project, asserting a claim based on common law negligence and alleged violation of New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6). The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to the defendants’ liability on some of his claims. The defendants filed cross motions for summary judgment.

New York Court Reverses Summary Judgment, Holding that Driver Who Had Right-of-Way Might Still be Partially at Fault in Crash

Published on: February 1, 2019 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Sometimes, a Syracuse automobile accident case seems very simple at first. If one driver runs a stop sign and causes an accident, that driver – and only that driver – is at fault, right?

Unfortunately, things are not always as they seem, especially when it comes to motor vehicle accident litigation. This is especially true when it comes to multi-car accidents and the resolution of issues pertaining to comparative negligence.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiffs were two individuals who were injured in a multi-vehicle crash. They filed separate lawsuits naming several other drivers as defendants. One driver (and his father, who owned the vehicle he was driving when the accident occurred) filed motions for summary judgment in the plaintiffs’ respective cases. As grounds, they averred that they could not be held liable for the plaintiffs’ damages because the defendant driver had the right-of-way at the time of the accident. According to the defendants’ view of the case, the conduct of another driver, who allegedly ran a stop sign, was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Summary Judgment in Failure-to-Diagnose Stroke Case Reversed by New York Appellate Court

Published on: January 31, 2019 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

With the vast knowledge of the internet readily at our fingertips, it can be tempting these days to attempt to self-diagnose an illness or medical condition based on the particular symptoms that we have. However, we quickly learn that our symptoms may result from a wide array of medical conditions – a persistent headache could indicate anything from simple dehydration to a brain tumor.

That’s why a sensible person who is experiencing medical issues goes to an expert – a doctor or a hospital, depending on the severity of the symptoms. Unfortunately, many New York medical malpractice cases are filed annually due to the failure of these so-called medical professionals to correctly diagnose or treat a patient’s medical condition.

Facts of the Case

A recent appellate case heard in the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department involved a medical malpractice claim made by a man who was seen by several different healthcare providers over an 11-day period in 2008. During this time, the plaintiff was told that he had sinusitis and an ear infection, among other things. When the plaintiff’s primary care physician finally saw the plaintiff, he immediately recognized the signs and symptoms of a stroke. The plaintiff sued several doctors and medical clinics, seeking monetary compensation for injuries he allegedly sustained due to their negligence in failing to properly diagnose and treat his medical condition.