Medical Malpractice

Failure to Diagnose Heart Attack in Syracuse and Across New York

Published on: January 9, 2018 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

If you have been injured or your loved one has died due to a medical professional’s failure to correctly diagnose a heart attack, you may be able to recover compensation for your harm. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, our Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys understand how to navigate these complex claims and can put our knowledge to use in your case.

A heart attack happens when the blood supply to part of the heart muscle itself is seriously reduced or stopped. Put another way, a heart attack takes place when there is inadequate blood supply to the heart. When blood flow is restricted, the heart muscle starts to fail, resulting in severe chest pain. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, someone dies from a heart attack every 40 seconds in the United States. About 20 percent of cardiac events are characterized as “silent,” meaning the victim is unaware that the heart attack occurred, even though the body is dealing with the detrimental effects.

In most cases, a patient will experience certain things before the onset of a heart attack, such as chest pain, left shoulder pain, nausea, fainting or light-headedness, cold sweats, and having difficulty breathing. In addition to these signs, certain patients often have higher risk factors for heart attacks, some of which include high blood pressure, obesity, smoking, lack of physical activity, and diabetes.

Anesthesia Errors in Syracuse and New York

Published on: December 27, 2017 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Anesthesiologists play a vital role in keeping patients safe during surgical procedures. If you or a loved one has suffered harm due to an anesthesia error, you may be entitled to compensation for your harm. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, our skilled Syracuse anesthesia malpractice attorneys understand the serious consequences that can result from such errors, which is why are committed to providing aggressive yet compassionate representation at every step of the way. You can rest assured that we are here to answer your questions and address your concerns.

Whether it is a local anesthetic or a general anesthetic that puts you to sleep, the goal of anesthesia is the same: to reduce or prevent pain and allow physicians to work. While the use of anesthesia is normally safe, mistakes involving anesthesia can lead to serious injuries and even death. Anesthesia errors affect many people in New York and throughout the United States each year. In fact, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations states that 21,000 to 42,000 Americans experience anesthesia awareness each year – a condition in which the intended state of complete unconsciousness is not maintained throughout the whole surgical procedure. In other words, the patient can recall the surroundings or an event related to the surgery while under general anesthesia. Other examples of anesthesia errors include:

Dosage error (too much or too little);

Wrongful Death Arising From Malpractice in Syracuse and Across New York

Published on: December 18, 2017 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Losing a loved one is a shattering experience in anyone’s life, especially when the death was untimely and unexpected. If you lost a loved one during or shortly after a medical procedure, you may be entitled to file a wrongful death lawsuit. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, our skilled Syracuse wrongful death attorneys will thoroughly review your claim and determine how we can help. With years of experience, you can rest assured that we understand how to pursue the compensation you need to move on with your life.

Unfortunately, medical malpractice is more common than you may think. In fact, one Johns Hopkins study found that medical malpractice deaths are the third-leading cause of death in the nation. According to data collected by the Institute of Medicine, one of five medical errors are potentially serious or fatal. Additionally, an estimated 98,000 Americans die each year due to preventable medical errors, including 7,000 deaths caused by medication errors.

When your loved one’s death is caused by someone else’s negligence, you may be able to file a wrongful death claim against the at-fault party. New York places the responsibility of filing the wrongful death claim on the “personal representative” of the deceased person’s estate. This means family members are not allowed to file a wrongful death claim in civil court unless that family member is also the personal representative of the deceased person’s estate. However, the wrongful death claim may seek damages for losses suffered by the deceased person’s heirs, beneficiaries, or devisees, as well as any losses suffered by the decedent’s estate.

Plaintiff Alleges that Mental Health Facility Intentionally Destroyed Evidence in Hospital Malpractice Case

Published on: November 16, 2017 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

New York hospital malpractice cases require the review of voluminous medical records. Hospitals and health care providers are required to maintain these records, so a claim should simply be a matter of reviewing what’s disclosed or produced in the pre-trial discovery process. The facts surrounding a medical malpractice decision in which a behavioral health center destroyed physical medical records even after a lawsuit was pending are especially shocking. Without the records, this put the plaintiff at a serious disadvantage to prove the case. The court reviewed what should happen in an evidence spoliation case involving medical malpractice.

In this case, the decedent had a history of mental health problems. When his wife of over three decades passed away, he attempted suicide, which resulted in a December 2013 emergency room visit. The decedent was then admitted to a mental health facility. The decedent and his son, who was his legal guardian at the time, signed a voluntary admission form. The decedent was discharged from the clinic a few months later. Tragically, however, he committed suicide 10 days later.

The family of the decedent requested that the mental health facility retain the decedent’s records because they were considering a potential medical malpractice claim. The facility’s compliance chief ordered that the decedent’s paper records be sequestered. The family hired an attorney, who began discussions about the scope of document preservation with the facility. However, a new employee, who testified that she was not aware that records needed to be maintained, scanned the records electronically and then shredded the paper version.

Surgery Double-Booking Investigation Underscores Potential for New York Medical Malpractice Claims

Published on: October 17, 2017 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Patients are required to put a tremendous amount of trust into their physicians, who perform highly specialized procedures with the potential for tremendous risk. Unless told otherwise, most patients probably assume their surgeon is giving them their undivided attention during an operation. As recent regulatory scrutiny shows, however, the practice of double-booking surgeries occurs in hospitals across the country.The practice of double-booking works as follows. At teaching hospitals, more experienced surgeons train residents or fellows in performing surgeries. That means the attending, or more senior, surgeon can delegate the task of performing different surgeries to different trainees. In practice, the attending surgeon might perform an operation in one room while having a trainee performing a surgery on a different patient in another room.

Double-booking is not prohibited by law, but the policies of hospitals determine whether or not to allow the practice. Reports have alleged that health complications result from double-bookings. For instance, a Boston Globe investigative report noted examples of patients waiting under anesthesia while hospital staff attempted to locate surgeons who were not present. Trainees ended up performing those surgeries without oversight.

The reasons for why this practice has continued vary depending on who is presenting their case. Hospitals argue that it allows more patients to receive treatment because the surgeries are still performed with the utmost care. Critics say that the practice is about physicians bringing in more revenue because they can bill for multiple surgeries and have trainees perform a portion of them.

Appeals Court Expounds on Expert Net Opinion Rule in Medical Malpractice Decision

Published on: October 9, 2017 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice cases rely heavily on expert medical opinions because negligence is established by the breach of a physician’s standard of medical care. Not all expert testimony is admissible at trial, however. Each jurisdiction maintains rules of evidence to guide which sort of expert testimony is admissible. For example, NY CPLR Section 4515 sets forth the rules for admitting expert testimony in New York medical malpractice cases.

In a recent case, a plaintiff sought the services of a plastic surgeon and underwent abdominoplasty, also known as a “tummy tuck,” at the age of 57. The plastic surgeon later conducted multiple unsuccessful scar revisions, but the surgeries were botched. The plaintiff’s plastic surgeon refunded her medical expenses.

The plaintiff sought the treatment of other doctors to help correct the botched tummy tuck. Eventually, the plaintiff consulted with the defendant in the case, who recommended a less invasive, in-office procedure, which she underwent in June 2008. In several follow-up appointments, the plaintiff complained of abdominal pain and vaginal irritation. The plaintiff was referred to another doctor, who diagnosed her with an umbilical hernia, and she filed a lawsuit against the surgeon who performed the less invasive procedure.

Boxer Receives $22 Million Medical Malpractice Settlement from New York State

Published on: October 6, 2017 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Traumatic brain injuries are sometimes difficult to diagnose because the damage is not visible without scans or X-rays. Timing is a critical component in treating brain injuries. A failure to receive proper care can lead to permanent damage and disability. Sadly, the state inspector general found that the New York State Athletic Commission mishandled the medical care of a boxer after he suffered brain trauma in a New York boxing match.The boxing match in question was held in Madison Square Garden and televised to a pay-per-view audience. The fight turned out badly for the losing boxer, who had difficulty breathing and ended the fight with his face bloody and swollen. After the fight, the boxer told the ringside physicians that he was experiencing severe headaches. The physicians present reviewed his symptoms, bandaged a wound over his eyelid, and suggested that he go see a doctor once he returned to his home in Florida. There was an an ambulance at the arena, but the doctors decided not to use it.

Later in the night, the NYSAC doctor who was watching over the boxer and officially tasked with monitoring his symptoms observed disconcerting medical symptoms and recommended that he be taken to an emergency room. The boxer’s interpreter attempted to wave down a taxi outside the venue. At that point, the boxer became unbalanced, started vomiting, and lost consciousness after he arrived at the hospital.

Appeals Court Rules that Treating Physician’s Negligence Testimony is Inadmissible

Published on: October 3, 2017 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice claims generally require the testimony of an expert witness in order to determine negligence and causation. The testifying expert is crucially important to the presentation of a case, in addition to having the requisite medical credentials and experience to opine on the evidence reviewed. A recent appeals court decision from New Jersey considers whether a treating physician can testify for the defendant. The decision certainly has potential implications for New York medical malpractice law.The defendant performed surgery on the plaintiff to extract an organ by means of a specific, though risky, surgical procedure. The parties agreed that during the surgery, the defendant sliced the incorrect area, causing an injury to the plaintiff. The issue before the court was whether this injury was a risk to which the patient consented prior to surgery, or instead a breach of the defendant’s standard of care.

Several days following the surgery, the plaintiff went back to an emergency room in New York with vomiting symptoms. Another surgeon performed emergency surgery on the plaintiff and discovered that her bile duct had been severed. This surgeon who repaired the bile duct later testified at a deposition that in his opinion, the defendant did not deviate from the standard of care. The plaintiff appealed a lower court ruling, arguing, in part, that the testimony of the operating physician was prejudicial to the plaintiff’s case.

Syracuse Fertility Clinic Liable for Medical Malpractice in $7.5 Million Verdict

Published on: September 29, 2017 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Many couples deciding that they would like to start a family realize that they need medical professional help to do so. Fertility clinics have grown in number, leading to what some news outlets have called a “fertility boom.” One advantage of using a fertility clinic is that medical professionals can conduct genetic testing to determine the presence of certain diseases and disorders. However, a recent lawsuit against a Syracuse fertility clinic shows that a failure to conduct certain genetic testing, requested by the patients, could be medical malpractice in New York State.

The jury in the New York Supreme Court of Schenectady County recently awarded a $7.5 million verdict in a New York medical malpractice lawsuit against a Syracuse fertility clinic. The couple alleged that the fertility clinic acted negligently when it failed to perform a crucial genetic test. The couple’s daughter was born in 2011 with cystic fibrosis, a disease that is a genetic disorder that affects the lungs.

The services contract with the fertility clinic included a cystic fibrosis genetic marker test, and it required the fertility clinic to inform the couple of the results before implantation. The plaintiffs alleged that the fertility clinic never performed the test and sought damages to support their daughter’s care.

New York Medical Malpractice Verdict of $3.1 Million Reduced on Appeal

Published on: September 26, 2017 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Defendants who lose medical malpractice cases at trial may have grounds to appeal the jury’s decision. Although the level of an appeals court’s discretion varies, the standard of review often requires a certain level of deference to the jury’s decision, and as a result, studies show that more cases are affirmed on appeal than overturned. That was not the outcome, however, in a recent New York medical malpractice case, in which the court decided that the $3.1 million awarded to the plaintiffs at trial was excessive.

The trial court ruled that the defendant, St. Peter’s Hospital, departed from the standard of care for accepted medical practice when two nurses failed to carry out a doctor’s order to conduct a CCT scan to rule out a lumbar bleed. This departure from the standard of care was determined to be a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injury. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $3.1 million, $2.3 million of which was allocated to the plaintiff’s pain and suffering and $750,000 of which was allocated to loss of consortium.

The defendant appealed the decision. The appeals court first considered whether a new trial could be granted for the defendant. New York law provides that the court may only set aside a jury verdict if the verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. The defendant asserted that the plaintiffs’ expert allegedly perjured herself by signing an affidavit regarding the issue of proximate cause when she lacked such qualifications. The appeals court noted that the jury decided this issue at trial and that therefore the court declined to grant the defendant’s motion for a new trial.