Syracuse Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

New York Court Compares Medical Malpractice to Ordinary Negligence

Published on: December 19, 2024 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

When injuries occur in a hospital setting, determining whether the claims arise from medical malpractice or ordinary negligence can significantly impact a case’s viability. This distinction often determines the applicable statute of limitations and legal standards for proving liability. A recent New York decision highlights this distinction and how New York courts evaluate such claims. If you or a loved one were injured in a healthcare setting, it is crucial to consult a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to assess your options as soon as you can.

History of the Case

It is alleged that in June 2017, the plaintiff, a 71-year-old patient, sustained injuries when he fell while unattended in the defendant hospital’s bathroom. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant hospital, alleging negligence in failing to provide proper care and supervision. In his complaint and bill of particulars, the plaintiff asserted various claims sounding in ordinary negligence. However, he later acknowledged that some allegations could also be interpreted as claims of medical malpractice.

It is reported that the defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims under CPLR 3211(a)(5), arguing that all allegations were time-barred under the 2½-year statute of limitations applicable to medical malpractice claims. The plaintiff opposed the motion, contending that his claims were rooted in ordinary negligence, which is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. The trial court partially denied the defendant’s motion, finding that some of the plaintiff’s claims sounded in negligence and were, therefore timely. The defendant appealed the decision. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Explains Grounds for Vacating a Jury’s Verdict

Published on: December 16, 2024 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Generally, people pursuing medical malpractice claims will present evidence to a jury to prove that a deviation occurred and caused harm. Juries do not always make rules in accordance with the evidence, though, and if they do not, their verdict may be subject to challenge, as demonstrated in a recent New York ruling. If you were harmed by inadequate medical care, you may be owed damages, and it is smart to speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the plaintiffs, on behalf of their child, commenced a medical malpractice action against multiple defendants, including a medical practice and a pediatric gastroenterologist. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants failed to diagnose anal stenosis and a rectovaginal fistula between July and December 2018, despite multiple visits and symptoms.

Reportedly, the infant’s primary pediatrician, an employee of the medical practice, saw the infant for a routine well-visit in November 2018 and did not perform a digital rectal examination. Prior to that, the pediatric gastroenterologist examined the infant in September 2018 but similarly did not identify any abnormalities during the visit. The plaintiffs alleged that these failures constituted departures from good and accepted medical practice and led to delays in diagnosing the infant’s condition, which was ultimately confirmed in December 2018.

New York Court Denies Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: November 19, 2024 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice cases often involve intricate questions regarding the standard of care and causation. The complexity of such claims was illustrated in a recent New York decision in which the court partially denied a motion for summary judgment in a case alleging negligence in discontinuing seizure medication. If you suffered harm due to negligent medical care, it is prudent to meet with a Syracause medical malpractice attorney to discuss your options.

Case Setting

It is alleged that the plaintiff brought claims of medical malpractice and lack of informed consent against the defendant physician, alleging improper discontinuation of an anti-seizure medication, seizure medication. The plaintiff, who had a history of epilepsy and heavy alcohol use, had been seizure-free for years while on seizure medication. During an April 2018 visit, the plaintiff reportedly told the defendant that he had reduced his seizure medication dosage on his own to simplify his medication routine. Based on this information, the defendant discontinued seizure medication. Subsequently, the plaintiff experienced a grand mal seizure in January 2019, leading to serious injuries.

Reportedly, the plaintiff argued that the defendant deviated from the standard of care by discontinuing the medication without proper evaluation, failing to taper the dosage, and not consulting a neurologist. The defendant sought summary judgment, asserting that her actions were within the standard of care and that any alleged deviations did not cause the plaintiff’s injuries. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Addresses Jurisdiction in Medical Malpractice Claims

Published on: November 15, 2024 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

The legal system provides pathways for individuals to seek remedies for injuries caused by alleged medical malpractice. However, plaintiffs must navigate the jurisdictional requirements to ensure that their claims are appropriately filed. The importance of federal jurisdiction and its limitations in addressing medical malpractice claims was highlighted in a recent ruling in a New York medical malpractice case, in which the court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff’s case. If you were harmed due to a healthcare provider’s negligence, it is critical to understand your rights and your options for pursuing damages, and you should speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to assess your case.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the plaintiff initiated a pro se action against several private medical entities, alleging medical malpractice and constitutional violations arising from purported misdiagnoses and failure to address critical health conditions. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that she was prescribed unnecessary medications and that medical staff neglected to monitor her vitamin levels, leading to severe harm. The plaintiff sought relief under federal question jurisdiction, alleging violations of her constitutional rights and referencing Medicaid fraud and the False Claims Act.

It is further alleged that the plaintiff included documents from a related state court medical malpractice case involving similar claims. The federal district court, upon review, evaluated the plaintiff’s assertions for sufficiency under federal jurisdiction standards.

Grounds for Federal Jurisdiction

In its analysis, the court emphasized the limited scope of federal jurisdiction, which requires either a federal question or diversity of citizenship between parties. The plaintiff’s claims primarily involved medical malpractice—a matter governed by state law—against private entities. The court noted that private medical facilities do not qualify as state actors capable of triggering federal question jurisdiction under constitutional claims. The court also dismissed any potential FCA claims, as the plaintiff failed to substantiate allegations of fraud against the federal government. Additionally, the plaintiff’s lack of standing to pursue FCA claims pro se precluded further consideration.

New York Court Examines Admissibility of Experts in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: October 22, 2024 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In many instances, emergency C-sections are necessary to prevent children or mothers from suffering grave injuries. While C-sections can be life-saving procedures, post-surgical complications can arise that nonetheless cause harm. In many cases, such complications are the direct result of negligence and are grounds for pursuing medical malpractice claims. Expert testimony is generally necessary to support such claims, but as discussed in a recent New York opinion, experts must meet certain qualifications in order for their testimony to be admissible. If you sustained losses due to a careless doctor, you should confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney regarding your rights.

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiffs, a married couple, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants, including the United States, a health care provider, and a physician, following an injury sustained during post-partum care. The female plaintiff was admitted to the defendant healthcare facility in September 2017 for labor and underwent a C-section. During the post-operative care, as a resident physician attempted to remove surgical dressing tape, a significant amount of the plaintiff’s skin was removed with the tape, resulting in severe injuries, including permanent scarring.

Reportedly, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants deviated from the appropriate standard of care in treating the female plaintiff, causing these injuries. They also claimed that the defendants failed to consult specialists, listen to the plaintiff’s complaints, and provide adequate post-partum care. The plaintiffs sought damages for the injuries and a loss of consortium claim. The case proceeded through discovery, and the parties filed cross-motions in limine to exclude the testimony of several expert witnesses. Continue Reading ›

Court Addresses Statute of Limitations in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: October 10, 2024 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

People who are admitted to hospitals for the management of acute and chronic conditions expect that they will receive competent care that protects their health and safety. Unfortunately, though, hospitals do not always treat patients in a manner that meets their expectations and sometimes commit errors that expose patients to unforeseen risks. As demonstrated in a recent New York medical malpractice case, such oversights are typically grounds for pursuing medical malpractice claims as long as they are filed in a timely manner. If you were hurt by negligent care in a hospital, it is wise to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney promptly to avoid waiving your potential claims.

Facts and Procedural History

It is alleged that the plaintiff initiated an action in June 2016 against the defendant, a hospital, seeking damages for medical malpractice. The plaintiff alleged that during her hospital stay in February 2014, she received daily insulin injections via an insulin pen. After her discharge, the plaintiff received a letter from the defendant in February 2014, indicating that the insulin pen used during her treatment might have contained a reused reservoir, which potentially exposed her to various diseases.

It is reported that the defendant moved for dismissal of the complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(5), arguing that the action was time-barred or, alternatively, for summary judgment dismissing the case. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed the decision. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Examines the Right to Pursue Wrongful Death Medical Malpractice Claims

Published on: September 20, 2024 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Incompetent medical care can cause grave and lasting harm, and, unfortunately, it is not uncommon for victims of medical malpractice to succumb to the injuries caused by their healthcare providers. In such cases, their loved ones may be able to pursue claims against the parties responsible for their losses. Only certain people possess the capacity to sue, though, as explained in a recent New York opinion. If you lost a loved one due to the carelessness of a physician, you may be owed damages, and you should confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, acting as a proposed administrator of the decedent’s estate, initiated an action asserting claims of medical malpractice, negligence, and wrongful death after the decedent passed away in January 2022. The initial action was filed in December 2022 by the plaintiff in her capacity as the “proposed administratrix” of the decedent’s estate. However, the defendant successfully moved to dismiss the action in September 2023, arguing that the plaintiff lacked the legal capacity to sue, as she had not yet obtained the necessary letters of administration from the Surrogate’s Court.

It is alleged that the dismissal was without prejudice. In February 2024, the plaintiff filed a new summons and complaint, attempting to revive the claims under CPLR 205(a), which allows for refiling within six months of a dismissal not based on the merits. However, the plaintiff had still not obtained the letters of administration, and the defendant again moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked the legal capacity to sue. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Negligent Hiring Claims Against Healthcare Providers

Published on: September 16, 2024 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

People harmed by careless doctors and nurses will often seek damages via medical malpractice claims. In addition to claims against the provider that directly caused their losses, they may also be able to pursue claims, like negligent hiring and supervision, against the provider’s employer. In order to sustain such causes of action, however, they must show that the employer either knew or should have known that the healthcare provider they employed posed a risk of harm to patients, as explained in a recent New York case. If you were hurt by a doctor, it is in your best interest to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer about your rights.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the decedent passed away on November 14, 2024. The plaintiff, the decedent’s husband, subsequently initiated an action against the defendant, a medical center, in May 2017. The plaintiff, acting as the administrator of his late wife’s estate and the natural father and guardian of their minor child, brought claims for medical malpractice, wrongful death, negligent hiring, and retention and sought damages for loss of consortium on his own behalf and loss of parental guidance on behalf of his child.

It is reported that the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(5) and (7), arguing that the claims for medical malpractice and wrongful death were time-barred and the remaining claims failed to state a valid cause of action. The trial court granted the order and entered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of the claims for negligent hiring and retention and loss of consortium. Continue Reading ›

Court Explains Expert Qualifications in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: August 24, 2024 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Expert testimony is a key component of medical malpractice cases and is often needed to demonstrate negligence and causation. While experts must meet certain qualifications, they do not have to be specialists in the field about which they are testifying but can show their credentials via training and experience, as shown in a recent New York case. If you were harmed because of the carelessness of a doctor, you should talk to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer regarding your potential claims.

Factual Setting and Procedural History

It is reported that the decedent visited an urgent care clinic operated by the defendant facility, complaining of intermittent joint pain in her upper extremities over the past three days. The decedent, who had a history of high blood pressure and thyroid disease, was examined by the defendant physician at the defendant facility, who referred her to a rheumatologist. On September 11, 2014, the decedent visited her long-time physician, the defendant allergist. She complained of not feeling well for two weeks, including a burning sensation in her arms, hot flashes, and weakness. The defendant physician had been managing her conditions with medication and ordered blood tests.

Allegedly, hours after this visit, the decedent suffered a fatal heart attack. An autopsy determined that the cause of death was arteriosclerotic heart disease with thrombosis of the right coronary artery and myocardial infarction. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants. Following discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they adhered to good medical practice and that any alleged departure did not cause the decedent’s death. The trial granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, dismissing the causes of action for medical malpractice and wrongful death. The plaintiff then appealed the decision. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Liability for Post-Surgical Complications

Published on: August 20, 2024 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Heart conditions often cause critical health issues that require surgery. It is not uncommon for patients to develop complications following such procedures, and therefore, it is crucial that they are thoroughly and regularly assessed during their recovery period. If they are not and subsequently encounter significant difficulties, their provider may be deemed negligent. In a recent case, a New York court discussed liability for post-surgical complications and the evidence needed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact. If you were hurt by negligent medical care, it is smart to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is reported that the decedent, a 50-year-old woman, was diagnosed with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and underwent a septal myectomy, an elective open-heart surgery, in June 2014. Following the surgery, she was placed in the Cardiac Care Unit and was treated with Heparin and a pneumatic sequential compression device to prevent deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Over the next few days, the decedent exhibited symptoms of DVT, but her vital signs remained within normal limits.

It is alleged that five days after her surgery, the decedent’s condition suddenly deteriorated, and she went into cardiac arrest twice. Despite resuscitation efforts, she was pronounced dead. An autopsy later revealed that the cause of death was an acute pulmonary embolism. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that the defendants committed medical malpractice. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that they had met the standard of care and that any deviation from the standard was not the proximate cause of death. The plaintiff opposed the motion. Continue Reading ›