Medical Malpractice

New York Court Discusses Notice Required in Medical Malpractice Cases Against Municipal Entities

Published on: June 23, 2021 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In New York, people harmed by medical malpractice have the right to seek compensation from the providers that caused their harm. They must abide by any applicable laws regarding notice and timeliness, though, otherwise they may waive the right to recover damages. For example, if the defendant is a municipal entity, a plaintiff must provide notice of a potential claim within 90 days of the date of harm. While in some cases, a court will grant leave to provide late notice, such permission is not always provided. Rather, as explained in a recent New York opinion, a plaintiff must show such leave is warranted. If you suffered harm because of medical malpractice, it is smart to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your options.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff suffered a hand injury, which was treated at a health clinic run by the defendant municipal corporation. He suffered complications during the healing process and subsequently had to undergo surgery. He asserted that his treatment did not meet the accepted standard of care but failed to serve the defendant with notice of the claim within 90 days as required by New York law. Approximately ten months later, he moved for leave to serve late notice of his claim. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion, and the defendant appealed. Upon review, the appellate court reversed the trial court ruling.

Grounds for Leave to Provide Late Notice of a Claim

On appeal, the court noted that the plaintiff did not offer any first-hand account of the incident or of any investigation that occurred thereafter. Further, he did not offer proof that any records of the incident existed, let alone evidence that the content of such records would show that the city had actual notice of his intention to file a civil lawsuit based on allegations of negligence within 90 days of the date of his harm or within a reasonable time after, as required to establish grounds for granting late notice under New York law. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Explains Federal Jurisdiction Over Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: June 21, 2021 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice cases are typically complex and require the retention of multiple experts, extensive discovery, analysis of complicated issues, and understanding of statutes and procedural rules. As such, while some people may be tempted to pursue such claims without the assistance of an attorney, it is generally ill-advised, as they make commit errors that could result in the dismissal of their case. This was explained in a recent New York matter in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s medical malpractice lawsuit due to his failure to pursue his claims in the proper manner. If you sustained damages due to negligent treatment from a health care provider, it is in your best interest to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer about your options for seeking damages.

The Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff treated with the defendant doctors due to issues with his back. He ultimately underwent spinal surgery, which was performed by the defendants. He subsequently suffered unspecified complications. As such, he filed a pro se lawsuit against the defendants in federal court, asserting negligence per se and medical malpractice claims. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. After a review of the pleadings, the court granted the defendants’ motion.

Jurisdiction over Medical Malpractice Claims

The court explained that while the plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, was entitled to special consideration and would be held to less stringent standards than parties represented by attorneys, his claims must nonetheless be dismissed. The court noted that pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts may exercise limited jurisdiction. Specifically, they can wield subject matter jurisdiction over claims that present federal questions, which are those in which a colorable claim arises under the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Verdict Slips in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: May 26, 2021 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Older people are especially vulnerable to the injuries that arise out of incompetent medical care, and in many instances, the harm they sustain is insurmountable, and they ultimately succumb to their illnesses. In such instances, the deceased person’s family members often can seek compensation from the negligent care providers via a wrongful death claim. In a recent New York ruling, a court discussed a dispute over verdict slips in a case in which it was alleged that medical negligence led to a person’s death. If you suffered the loss of a loved one due to incompetent medical care, you have the right to pursue claims, and you should speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to determine what compensation you may be able to recover.

The Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s decedent was admitted to the defendant hospital. One evening during his stay, he vomited and then was noted to have blue lips and nailbeds. His oxygen saturation level dropped to 55%, and he died later that evening. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging medical negligence and wrongful death claims. Prior to trial, the parties submitted proposed verdict sheets. The defendant then filed a motion asking the court to reject the plaintiff’s verdict sheet to the extent it sought damages for emotional or physical harm or death, and conscious pain and suffering caused by the defendant’s violation of New York health laws. The court denied the defendant’s motion, after which the defendant filed a motion for leave to reargue the issues.

New York Court Dismisses Medical Malpractice Case Asserting a Wrongful Life Claim

Published on: February 25, 2021 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Many people have advanced directives that indicate that they do not want to receive life-sustaining treatment in the event they contract a terminal illness or suffer an acute medical event. Thus, if a doctor in a hospital prolongs the life of a person with a living will, it may go against the person’s ultimate wishes. It likely does not constitute medical malpractice, however, as discussed in a recent New York ruling in which the court stated that New York does not recognize a cause of action for wrongful life and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against a hospital. If you or a loved one sustained losses because of negligent care in a hospital, it is prudent to meet with a Syracuse hospital malpractice lawyer to assess your rights.

The Decedent’s Care

It is reported that in 1993, the decedent drafted a living will that stated he did not want to receive life-sustaining treatment if he was terminally ill. In 2017, the decedent’s health had deteriorated to the point that he would likely soon die. The defendant hospital, which was tasked with caring for the defendant, was notified of the living will by the decedent’s health care agent. The defendant nonetheless provided the decedent with antibiotics and intravenous treatment, prolonging his life by twenty days.

Allegedly, after the decedent passed away, the plaintiff instituted a malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging it unnecessarily prolonged the decedent’s pain and suffering. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff was asserting a wrongful life claim which was not a valid cause of action under New York law. The court agreed, granting the defendant’s motion. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Reverses Order Denying Summary Judgment in a Cardiology Malpractice Case

Published on: December 21, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Tragically, many people suffer devastating complications following routine surgical procedures. In some instances, the complications are the result of medical malpractice and could have been avoided by the exercise of due care, but in others, they are merely unfortunate and unexpected side effects. Recently, a New York court discussed the burden of proof imposed on a plaintiff in an opinion delivered in a cardiology malpractice case where the plaintiff’s decedent died following a routine eye procedure. If you suffered harm due to a careless cardiologist, you might be owed damages, and it would benefit you to meet with a trusted Syracuse cardiology malpractice attorney to discuss your options.

The Plaintiff’s Losses and Claims

It is reported that the plaintiff’s decedent underwent eye surgery, which was performed at the defendant outpatient facility. Prior to the procedure, he underwent a physical examination with the defendant primary care physician. Sadly, the decedent suffered unexpected complications and died shortly after the procedure. The plaintiff then commenced a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant facility and primary care physician, as well as the decedent’s cardiologist. The defendants moved to have the claims against them dismissed via summary judgment, but the court denied their motions. They then appealed.

Establishing Liability in a Medical Malpractice Case

On appeal, the court reversed the trial court rulings. The court noted that to prove the liability of a doctor, a plaintiff must prove that the doctor departed from the accepted standard of practice and that the departure directly caused the plaintiff’s losses. A defendant that wishes to have medical malpractice claims dismissed via summary judgment must produce prima facie evidence that he or she did not depart from the accepted practice of medicine or that the departure did not proximately lead to the plaintiff’s harm.

New York Court Dismisses Medical Malpractice Case Due to Lack of Jurisdiction

Published on: October 28, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

While most people choose to hire a competent attorney to represent them in medical malpractice cases, some decide to represent themselves to avoid the cost of attorneys’ fees. Medical malpractice cases are usually intricate, though, and handling them typically requires extensive knowledge and skill. As such, plaintiffs that represent themselves often end up with adverse outcomes, as demonstrated in a recent medical malpractice case in New York in which the pro se plaintiff’s claims were dismissed. If you were hurt by the incompetence of a medical professional, it is advisable to confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to assess the best manner to proceed in your case.

Background of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was treated at the defendant hospital in 2017 and 2018 for breast cancer. She subsequently suffered unspecified harm, after which she filed a medical malpractice case against the defendant in federal court. The plaintiff, who filed the case without the assistance of an attorney, filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted. The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s case due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the defendant’s motion but allowed the plaintiff leave to replead her case.

Jurisdiction Over Medical Malpractice Cases

The court explained that under the relevant federal law, an in forma pauperis action should be dismissed if it is frivolous, seeks compensation from a defendant that is immune from such relief, or fails to set forth a claim upon which relief may be granted. Thus, to avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.

New York Court Affirms Dismissal of Medical Malpractice Claims Due to Lack of Evidence of Negligence

Published on: October 20, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In many instances in which a person dies due to a devastating medical issue, the person’s loved ones will pursue medical malpractice claims. Simply because a person dies due to the sudden progression of an illness does not necessarily mean that malpractice has occurred, however, and even in cases involving death, a plaintiff must nonetheless produce evidence sufficient to prove liability. This was illustrated in a recent medical malpractice case in New York in which the plaintiff’s medical malpractice and wrongful death claims were dismissed due to a lack of evidence that the defendants breached the standard of care. If you lost a loved one due to negligent medical care, it is prudent to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to discuss your possible claims.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff’s decedent sought treatment for back pain on three occasions in January 2012. First, he visited his primary care physician with complaints of extreme back pain and was directed to visit the emergency room. He then went to the defendant medical center, where he was examined by the defendant doctor, who ruled out an aneurysm or tracheal deviation. Two days later, he returned to the defendant primary care physician and was directed to undergo an MRI. Following the MRI, he was directed to go to the emergency room.

Allegedly, the decedent then visited the defendant hospital, where he was diagnosed with an epidural abscess. Soon after, he became paralyzed from the waist down and ultimately died due to respiratory failure. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against each of the treating providers, who, in turn, filed motions for summary judgment. The court largely granted the motions, and the plaintiff appealed.

Court Analyzes Evidence Sufficient to Demonstrate a Triable Issue of Fact in a Medical Malpractice case in New York

Published on: September 28, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Generally, in medical malpractice cases in the state of New York, the plaintiff will file a complaint and a bill of particulars setting forth the alleged wrongdoings of the defendant, and then the parties will engage in discovery. In many instances, after discovery is closed, the defendant will ask the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims via a motion for summary judgment. If the plaintiff can demonstrate the existence of a valid factual dispute as to whether the defendant committed malpractice, though, the plaintiff’s case may proceed to trial. Recently, a New York court discussed the evidence needed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact, in a case in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s negligence led to the plaintiff’s mother’s death. If you or a loved one suffered harm at the hands of a primary care doctor, it is wise to meet with a trusted Syracuse primary care malpractice attorney to evaluate whether you have a viable claim.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff’s mother, who was 70-years-old, suffered a fall at home. She was then admitted to the hospital by the defendant primary care physician, who had been caring for her for eight years. Approximately two weeks later, the defendant transferred the mother to the defendant nursing and rehabilitation center to undergo physical therapy and strengthening. While she was admitted to the center, the mother’s condition deteriorated, and after three weeks, she was transferred back into the hospital.

Allegedly, she died one week later from cardiopulmonary arrest, with urosepsis as a significant factor that contributed to her demise. The plaintiff then filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants, alleging that her mother was injured during her admission to the defendant center. The defendants each filed motions for summary judgment, which were denied. The defendant primary care physician then appealed. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Dismissal of Medical Malpractice Claims for Failure to Prosecute

Published on: August 18, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Generally, in a medical malpractice case in New York, it is the plaintiff’s duty to move the case forward. Thus, if the plaintiff fails to pursue his or her claims against the defendant, it may result in a dismissal. Recently, a New York court discussed when the dismissal of a medical malpractice claim for failure to prosecute is warranted in a case in which the plaintiff failed to comply with an order directing her to file a note of issue. If you were hurt by reckless or negligent medical care, it is in your best interest to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to discuss what steps you must take to prove liability for your harm.

Facts and Procedural History of the Case

The facts of the case are sparse. It is reported, however, that the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against numerous defendants. Ultimately, the trial court issued an order directing the plaintiff to file a note of issue. The plaintiff did not comply with the court’s directive, however. As such, the defendants each individually filed motions to have the plaintiff’s claims against them dismissed, and the plaintiff filed a motion to extend the time to file a note of issue. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions, thereby terminating all of the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff then appealed.

Dismissal of a Case for Failure to File a Note of Issue

On appeal, the court reversed the trial court ruling and granted the defendant’s motion for additional time to file the note of issue. The court noted that while a plaintiff’s failure to abide by a court order directing her to file a note of issue may provide grounds for the dismissal of a complaint, a court is barred from dismissing an action based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute claims against the defendant unless certain statutory conditions are met. For example, under the applicable statute, a 90-day demand to file a note must be served on the plaintiff. Thus, either the defendant or the court must file a 90-day demand to file a note of issue before a court is permitted to dismiss a lawsuit for failure to prosecute.

New York Court Discusses Pursuing Medical Malpractice Claims Under the Federal Tort Claims Act

Published on: May 24, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

A variety of health care providers’ actions or failure to act may give rise to a claim for medical malpractice. For example, not only may improperly rendered care form the basis for a medical malpractice lawsuit, but the failure to obtain a patient’s informed consent prior to performing a procedure may as well. A plaintiff asserting multiple claims in a medical malpractice action must meet the requirements for proceeding with each claim, however, as each claim is analyzed separately, as demonstrated in a recent ob-gyn malpractice case in New York. If you or your child suffered harm due to negligent care provided by an obstetrician or gynecologist, it is advisable to consult a seasoned Syracuse ob-gyn malpractice attorney regarding your potential claims.

Factual and Procedural History

It is alleged that the plaintiff treated at the defendant health center during her pregnancy. The defendant was a federally qualified health center eligible for coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff’s baby suffered numerous birth injuries due to the defendant’s failure to conduct proper fetal monitoring or to deliver the baby in a timely manner. Thus, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant pursuant to the Tort Claims Act, alleging medical negligence and lack of informed consent, and arguing that she suffered the loss of consortium of her child. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s lack of informed consent and the loss of consortium claims.

Pursuing Medical Malpractice Claims Under the Federal Tort Claims Act

The Federal Tort Claims Act is the sole remedy for claims against the United States or any of its employees. Thus, prior to commencing a lawsuit under the Tort Claims Act, a plaintiff must file an administrative claim with the correct federal agency, and the claim must be denied. Filing the claim is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived. As such, if a plaintiff fails to meet this requirement, his or her claim must be dismissed due to the court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction.