Syracuse Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

New York Court Examines Permissible Claims in a Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: November 22, 2025 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

When families bring loved ones to an emergency department, they trust that medical professionals will act in accordance with both accepted medical standards and the patient’s legally documented wishes. Situations involving advance directives can become especially complex when emergencies arise and critical decisions must be made in seconds. A recent decision from a New York court examines these issues in the context of chest compressions performed on a patient who had executed a Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment. If you or someone close to you has concerns about medical care provided in a hospital setting, it is essential to consult with an experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorney who can evaluate whether a patient’s rights were properly protected.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action as the limited administrator of the decedent’s estate after the decedent became unresponsive shortly after arriving at the defendant hospital’s emergency department with complaints including abdominal pain. Employees of the defendant performed chest compressions, unaware that the decedent had previously executed a Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment declining life-saving measures. The chest compressions revived the decedent but were alleged to have caused injuries, including rib fractures, and the decedent died several hours later from a subsequent cardiac event.

Reportedly, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant’s employees breached the standard of care by performing chest compressions in direct contravention of the MOLST, resulting in pain and suffering related to the injuries caused by the resuscitation efforts. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including the argument that the action stated a claim for “wrongful life,” was time-barred as a battery, and could not proceed absent a statutory cause of action for violating a MOLST. The trial court denied the defendant’s motions, allowing the matter to proceed. A jury later returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the court denied the defendant’s motions for a directed verdict and to set aside the verdict. The defendant then appealed.

Permissible Claims in a Medical Malpractice Case

On appeal, the defendant first challenged the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the action at the pleading stage. The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff’s claim amounted to an impermissible “wrongful life” cause of action. Instead, the court reasoned that the plaintiff properly asserted a medical malpractice claim seeking damages for the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering allegedly caused when the defendant’s employees exceeded the scope of the decedent’s consent. The court further concluded that the claim did not sound in battery because the employees were unaware of the MOLST at the time they administered chest compressions, placing the matter within the realm of negligence rather than intentional tort.

The defendant next contended that no private cause of action existed for violating a MOLST absent explicit statutory authorization. The court held that even if no statute creates such a right, claims of this nature may proceed under traditional common-law medical malpractice principles.

The court noted that the right of a competent adult to refuse medical treatment, even when the refusal may result in death, is firmly grounded in New York common law. Advance directives, including MOLSTs, are recognized means through which a patient may decline resuscitation, even in emergency circumstances. Although emergency conditions may affect the standard of care in a particular situation, they do not categorically relieve a provider of the obligation to honor a MOLST when reasonably aware of its existence.

The defendant also argued that it was entitled to statutory immunity for disregarding a MOLST during an emergency. Under New York law, providers may disregard a do-not-resuscitate order if, among other conditions, they believe in good faith that the patient has revoked the order or if significant medical circumstances justify disregarding it. The court found this argument inapplicable because the plaintiff did not allege that employees intentionally disregarded or believed the MOLST had been revoked. Instead, the employees were simply unaware of its existence.

The court ultimately agreed with the defendant, however, that the trial court erred in denying the motion for a directed verdict following the jury trial. Viewing the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the appellate court concluded that no rational jury could find in the plaintiff’s favor because the plaintiff failed to provide expert testimony establishing the applicable standard of care or identifying a deviation from that standard.

The plaintiff’s expert described various ways a hospital might communicate MOLST information, but did not articulate a recognized standard of care governing such situations, nor did he opine that the defendant’s employees violated any such standard under the circumstances presented. In the absence of essential expert proof, the plaintiff could not sustain a medical malpractice claim, and the court therefore reversed the judgment and dismissed the complaint.

Consult with a Knowledgeable Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney

Questions concerning advance directives, emergency medical care, and a patient’s right to refuse life-sustaining treatment can be legally and emotionally complex. If you believe that you or a loved one received treatment inconsistent with documented medical wishes, it is advisable to seek guidance from an attorney experienced in medical malpractice litigation. The medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can help you understand your rights and explore available legal options. Contact us at 833-200-2000 or online to schedule a free and confidential consultation. We proudly serve clients throughout Rochester and Upstate New York State.

Grounds for Dismissing Medical Malpractice Claims

Published on: November 18, 2025 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Expectant parents rely on medical professionals to recognize complications, respond appropriately, and ensure the safety of both mother and child. When they fail to do so, it can lead to devastating injuries. Families impacted by birth injuries have the right to seek compensation, but whether they prevail depends, in part, on the evidence they offer in support of their claims, as demonstrated in a recent New York ruling. If your child suffered harm at birth, it is critical to understand your options, and you should speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice and negligence action on behalf of the infant plaintiff and the mother, asserting that the defendants failed to meet the accepted standard of care leading up to an emergency Cesarean section. The plaintiffs contended that the mother suffered from a large uterine fibroid and preeclampsia, conditions that increased the risk of placental abruption, and that the defendant physicians should have acted differently in the days prior to delivery. They asserted that the mother should not have been discharged from the hospital five days before the infant’s birth and should have been admitted three days before delivery to ensure closer observation.

Reportedly, after the action was filed, the defendants moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims and cross-claims, arguing that their treatment decisions were medically appropriate. The plaintiffs sought multiple adjournments to respond to the motion, and although the defendants initially consented, they later objected as delays continued for approximately a year. The trial court granted additional extensions but ultimately sanctioned the plaintiffs for noncompliance and warned that the summary judgment motion would be granted with prejudice if the plaintiffs did not timely file opposition papers. When the plaintiffs failed to submit their response by the court-ordered deadline, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the scheduling directive.

Court Discusses Timeliness of New York Medical Malpractice Claims

Published on: October 20, 2025 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Families place deep trust in nursing homes to care for their loved ones safely and compassionately. When facilities allegedly fail to meet professional standards, the consequences can be devastating. Unfortunately, procedural deadlines and statutory immunity laws can bar claims, even when serious allegations of neglect are raised, as demonstrated in a recent decision from a New York court. If you or a loved one has suffered harm while under nursing home care, it is critical to speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney experienced in navigating both negligence claims and statutory defenses to ensure your rights are protected.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, acting as the administrator of a decedent’s estate, commenced an action against the defendant nursing home alleging medical malpractice, negligence, statutory violations, and wrongful death. The plaintiff contended that the facility failed to provide adequate care during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in the resident’s death. The nursing home did not maintain proper staffing levels, failed to implement infection control procedures, and neglected to provide basic services such as hygiene assistance and nutrition.

Allegedly, the decedent was a resident of the facility during the height of the pandemic in 2020, a period when nursing homes across the state were under significant operational strain. The plaintiff initially filed an action in 2022, but that suit was dismissed because the plaintiff had not yet been formally appointed as the estate’s legal representative. After obtaining proper authority, the plaintiff refiled the lawsuit in 2024. The nursing home moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the claims were untimely and that it was immune from liability under the EDTPA, which provided protection to healthcare providers for acts and omissions related to the COVID-19 emergency. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Allows Addition of Medical Defendants Under Relation-Back Doctrine

Published on: October 15, 2025 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

When pursuing a medical malpractice claim, a plaintiff must not only establish that negligence occurred but also ensure that all responsible parties are named in the lawsuit in a timely manner. However, when procedural missteps or confusion about proper parties arise, courts may apply the “relation-back” doctrine to prevent unjust technical dismissals. A recent decision demonstrates how New York courts analyze whether a plaintiff may amend a complaint to reintroduce defendants after the statute of limitations has expired. If you believe that a medical provider’s negligence caused you harm, it is vital to contact a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice action against multiple healthcare providers following medical treatment received by the injured plaintiff. The initial complaint included two defendants associated with a wound care practice, a physician, and a medical corporation. Still, when the plaintiffs later filed an amended complaint, those parties were no longer listed as defendants. Counsel for the omitted parties sought a stipulation of discontinuance to formalize their removal, but the plaintiffs’ prior attorney never executed such a stipulation.

It is further alleged that the plaintiffs subsequently retained new counsel, who moved to amend the complaint once again, this time seeking to add the previously omitted physician and corporation as defendants. By then, the statute of limitations for filing new medical malpractice claims had expired. The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing that the claims against them were time-barred and that reinstating them as defendants would cause undue prejudice. The trial court nonetheless granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint, and the nonparty appellants appealed. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Addresses Conflicting Experts in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: September 20, 2025 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Patients trust their doctors to recognize the red flags hidden in lab results and to act quickly when those results suggest something serious. When physicians overlook or fail to communicate critical findings, patients can lose valuable time in fighting diseases like cancer. In such instances, the injured party will often seek accountability via medical malpractice claims, but if they do so without adequate expert support, their claim may be dismissed. A recent decision from a New York court shows how disputes over expert testimony can decide whether a malpractice claim is dismissed or moves forward. If you or a loved one has suffered because of a delayed cancer diagnosis, it is essential to seek legal advice from a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney who can ensure your voice is heard.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was under the care of his primary physician, who ordered bloodwork, including prostate-specific antigen testing, in 2016, 2017, and 2018. The plaintiff’s PSA levels rose above the normal range in 2017 and again in 2018. In April 2017, the physician referred the plaintiff to a urologist, but the referral listed only hematuria as the reason, omitting any mention of elevated PSA results.

Allegedly, the plaintiff did not pursue a urological evaluation until 2019, after changing doctors. A new physician referred him to another urologist, who performed a biopsy that revealed prostate cancer. The plaintiff then commenced a malpractice action in 2021 against the physician and associated medical practices, asserting that the delay in diagnosis caused his condition to worsen. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: September 15, 2025 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

When families turn to doctors for surgery, they trust that medical decisions will be carefully weighed against the risks involved. If tragedy follows, they often seek answers in the courtroom. In malpractice litigation, however, it is not enough to suspect negligence; plaintiffs must prove it with qualified expert testimony that links a physician’s actions to the harm suffered. A recent ruling from a New York court shows how fragile malpractice claims can be when expert support is lacking. If you or a loved one has been harmed after surgery, it is essential to consult with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about what you can do to protect your rights.

Facts and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of the decedent, filed a malpractice action against the defendant surgeon following complications from an incarcerated incisional hernia repair performed in May 2018. During the procedure, the surgeon repaired the hernia and resected a portion of the bowel. Postoperatively, the decedent experienced infection, respiratory failure, and eventual decline.

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s expert, a general surgeon licensed in Illinois, California, and Missouri, testified that the defendant departed from the standard of care by proceeding with surgery rather than attempting conservative management in the 92-year-old patient. He also claimed the defendant later failed to properly evaluate a fluid collection on a CT scan, mislabeling it as a hematoma rather than an abscess. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Examines Immunity for Medical Malpractice Claims

Published on: August 30, 2025 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

The COVID-19 pandemic reshaped nearly every aspect of daily life, including how patients accessed medical care and how providers delivered it. Courts are still grappling with the legal consequences of those extraordinary circumstances. A recent New York decision highlights how temporary immunity laws enacted during the public health crisis continue to influence medical malpractice litigation today. If you suffered harm due to incompetent medical care and you have questions about how pandemic-related laws may affect your potential case, it is critical to speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the plaintiff sought treatment from the defendant physician on March 16, 2020, for nausea, constipation, and vomiting. The physician, who practiced with a gastroenterology group, examined the plaintiff in his office at that time.

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s symptoms continued, and the defendant’s office closed on March 23, 2020, pursuant to the statewide emergency declaration. It is alleged that thereafter, the defendant communicated with the plaintiff by telephone on April 1, April 3, and April 6, 2020. On April 6, the plaintiff presented to a hospital and underwent emergency surgery for a bowel obstruction. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Conflicting Expert Reports in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: August 27, 2025 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

When people seek care in a hospital setting, they expect to receive careful monitoring and timely treatment. Unfortunately, the care offered often falls below what is considered acceptable, and people suffer from serious complications that sometimes occur not because of illness alone but because medical providers fail to act when action is most critical. In these situations, families are left to wonder whether negligence played a role in the outcome. A recent New York ruling demonstrates how courts analyze expert testimony and competing claims in medical malpractice cases. If you or a family member suffered harm following treatment in a hospital, speaking with a knowledgeable Syracuse medical malpractice attorney can help you understand your legal options and whether you may be entitled to compensation.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff’s decedent, who had a history of diabetes, hypertension, and other health issues, was admitted to the defendant hospital for treatment. While under the hospital’s care, the decedent allegedly developed complications that included respiratory distress and cardiac issues. Despite various interventions by the hospital staff, the decedent’s condition deteriorated, and the decedent ultimately passed away.

It is further reported that the plaintiff, as administrator of the decedent’s estate, commenced an action against the defendant hospital, asserting claims of medical malpractice and wrongful death. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s staff failed to provide appropriate monitoring, treatment, and timely interventions, and that such departures from the standard of care directly caused the decedent’s death. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Diligence in Pursuing Medical Malpractice Claims

Published on: July 15, 2025 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice litigation is often a marathon rather than a sprint, but even lengthy proceedings must adhere to procedural timelines. A recent decision from a New York court demonstrates the importance of prosecuting a case diligently and in accordance with court-imposed deadlines. In this medical malpractice action, the plaintiff failed to meet the statutory and procedural. If you have questions about how the law applies to your potential claim, it is advisable to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the plaintiff, acting individually and as executor of his spouse’s estate, filed suit in 2013 following her death from lung cancer. The complaint asserted claims for medical malpractice, alleging that the defendants’ negligent treatment contributed to or caused her death. More than eight years later, in May 2021, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the plaintiff to file a note of issue by June 14, 2021.

It is alleged that the plaintiff did not comply with that directive and failed to file the note of issue by the specified date. In June 2022, the defendants each served 90-day notices pursuant to CPLR 3216, formally demanding that the plaintiff file the note of issue within 90 days or face dismissal for failure to prosecute. The plaintiff again did not meet the required deadline, and in May and June 2023, the defendants separately moved to dismiss the complaint against them based on the plaintiff’s inaction.

It is further reported that the plaintiff opposed the motions, contending that law office failure on the part of his counsel justified the delay. He also argued that the case was potentially meritorious. Nonetheless, the trial court denied the motions to dismiss, prompting the defendants to appeal. Continue Reading ›

Court Examines Medical Malpractice Claims Arising Out of Federal Facilities

Published on: July 5, 2025 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

When people are incarcerated, they do not forfeit their right to adequate medical treatment. Sadly, though, it is not uncommon for delays or failures in prison health care to cause devastating, permanent harm. A recent ruling from a New York court highlights the legal threshold for pursuing medical claims in a correctional setting. If you or a loved one has experienced inadequate medical care while in custody or in a public facility, a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney can help evaluate your legal rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, who was incarcerated at a federal facility, began experiencing complications following eye surgery to address cataracts. After undergoing a procedure on his left eye, which involved placement of stabilizing metal hooks, the plaintiff initially seemed to recover. However, he soon developed blurred vision and persistent pain. Despite notifying facility medical staff of his worsening symptoms, he was allegedly told to wait and see whether the condition would resolve on its own.

It is alleged that the plaintiff eventually experienced a detached retina but was not immediately transferred for emergency medical care. After declaring a medical emergency, he was examined by nursing personnel and a nurse practitioner, but was not hospitalized until several days later. By that time, the damage had reportedly progressed, resulting in lasting visual impairment, headaches, and ongoing complications. The plaintiff initiated a federal lawsuit asserting that the delayed response violated his constitutional rights and contributed to permanent injury. Continue Reading ›