Syracuse Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Discovery is a key component of demonstrating fault and damages in medical malpractice cases. Additionally, defendants rely on discovery to help them mount defenses to the claims against them. As such, the courts do not look kindly on a party’s refusal to comply with discovery requests and may, in fact, issue judgments as a matter of law against such parties, as demonstrated in a recent New York medical malpractice case. If you were harmed by the carelessness of a doctor, it is wise to confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer about your possible claims.

Factual Background and Procedural Setting

Reportedly, in June 2016, the plaintiff initiated an action against the defendant to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent related to an MRI scan conducted in 2015. The plaintiff was required, pursuant to a July 2019 order, to provide certain authorizations by July 2019 and to file a note of issue by January 2020. The plaintiff failed to meet these requirements. In June 2022, the defendant served the plaintiff with a 90-day notice under CPLR 3216.

Allegedly, the plaintiff subsequently moved to extend the time to file a note of issue in July 2022. The defendant opposed this motion and cross-moved to strike the complaint based on the plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with discovery demands and court orders. In September 2022, the trial court granted the defendant’s cross-motion and denied the plaintiff’s motion. The plaintiff appealed this decision.  Continue Reading ›

It is not uncommon for people who receive incompetent medical care to suffer complications that negatively impact their health, mental and emotional well-being, and financial security. Fortunately, the law affords victims of medical negligence the right to pursue claims against the healthcare providers responsible for their harm. Any action they institute must be commenced within the time frame proscribed by law. If it is not, it may be dismissed, regardless of the sufficiency of their evidence, as demonstrated in a recent New York case. If you sustained losses due to reckless medical care, it is in your best interest to consult a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible to avoid waiving your right to recover damages.

Factual and Procedural History

It is alleged that the plaintiff, a former employee of a healthcare provider, initiated a lawsuit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The plaintiff alleged that she suffered from various medical conditions due to negligent medical care provided by her employer, a federally supported health center. During her employment, she was aware that the United States would defend and indemnify her if she were named as a defendant in a lawsuit.

Reportedly, after exhausting administrative remedies, the plaintiff filed her claim in federal court. The United States moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim was time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) because it was not filed within the required two-year period from the date the claim accrued. Continue Reading ›

People who suffer losses following incompetent medical care will often seek damages from their healthcare providers. In order to recover compensation, though, they must establish proximate cause, which means that they must connect the inadequate care in question to their ultimate harm. In a recent new York medical malpractice opinion, the court discussed what evidence is needed to meet this burden of proof. If you were hurt by a careless doctor, you may be owed damages, and you should talk to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer.

Factual and Procedural History

It is alleged that the plaintiff initiated a medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit against the defendant physician, among others, alleging negligence in the treatment of the decedent, who died by suicide. The defendant had treated the decedent in the days and weeks preceding the death, including an office visit on the day of the death. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant deviated from the standard of care by not referring the decedent to the emergency room the day before their death.

Reportedly, a jury found the defendant’s actions were a substantial factor in causing the death and awarded the plaintiff almost $10 million in damages. The defendant then filed a motion to set aside the verdict on the grounds of both the departure from the standard of care and proximate cause, seeking judgment as a matter of law to dismiss the complaint against him. Alternatively, the defendant requested a new trial on liability and damages. The trial court granted the motion concerning proximate cause, concluding that the evidence did not sufficiently establish a link between the defendant’s actions and the death, and dismissed the complaint against the defendant. The plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

Surgical procedures can offer relief for many chronic and acute conditions. If a doctor does not exercise due care when performing a surgery, though, they may inadvertently cause a patient harm, and may be liable for medical malpractice. In some cases, the hospital or healthcare system that employs the doctor may be responsible as well. As discussed in a recent New York opinion delivered in a medical malpractice case, plaintiffs are generally permitted to pursue discovery of a  hospital system’s procedures for vetting doctors that harm patients, as it may be critical to their claims. If you were harmed by a reckless physician, it is wise to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your rights.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action alleging that the defendant surgeon negligently performed a laparoscopic surgery that resulted in perforation of the decedent’s bowel. The surgery occurred at a hospital that was part of the healthcare network of the defendant’s healthcare system. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s healthcare system failed to establish reasonable procedures for reviewing the defendant’s surgeon’s qualifications before granting him privileges to perform surgeries.

Allegedly, The plaintiff and the decedent, before her passing, moved to compel Kaleida Health to produce a representative knowledgeable about prior incidents involving injuries to patients from surgeries performed by the defendant surgeon. Defendants cross-moved for a protective order. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion and the defendants appealed. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice cases typically involve disputes over whether a healthcare provider caused their patients harm. In most cases, both parties will provide expert reports in support of their positions. If a court finds that both parties’ experts offered sound opinions based on facts of record, it is unlikely that the courts will find that one party should prevail, as a matter of law. This was demonstrated in a recent New York medical malpractice ruling, in which the court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. If you have questions about whether you may be able to recover compensation in a lawsuit against a doctor who caused you harm, you should talk to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant’s doctors performed a knee replacement surgery and a subsequent skin graft procedure on the plaintiff. The plaintiff experienced complications following the procedures and filed medical malpractice claims against the defendants. The defendants then moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish the defendants were negligent and such negligence caused her harm. The court denied the defendants’ motion, however, after which the defendants appealed.

Demonstrating Factual Disputes in Medical Malpractice Cases

Upon review, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court, while acknowledging the defendants’ prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, found that the plaintiff’s experts raised genuine issues of fact regarding the defendants’ alleged negligence. Continue Reading ›

People hospitalized with significant health concerns will often be discharged to skilled nursing facilities to recuperate until they are well enough to return home. Sadly, rather than getting well, some people suffer critical harm. Such injuries do not always mean that they are the victims of medical malpractice, though, as demonstrated in a recent New York case in which the court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a material issue of fact existed with regard to the defendants’ medical negligence. If you want to learn more about your options for seeking compensation against healthcare providers that caused you or a loved one harm, it is prudent to talk to a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney.

History of the Cases

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s father was admitted to a skilled nursing facility operated by the defendant in July 2009 and received treatment from the defendant attending physician, and the defendant podiatrist, among others. After being diagnosed with a right heel blister in June 2010, which developed into a severe pressure ulcer, the father was transferred to a hospital for further evaluation and treatment. Subsequently, his right leg was partially amputated.

Reportedly, the plaintiff, acting as the decedent’s personal guardian, initiated the action against the defendants, seeking damages for medical malpractice. After the decedent’s death, the plaintiff was appointed as the administrator of his estate and continued the lawsuit. The defendants individually moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. The plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice cases are complicated, and most people harmed by medical incompetence who wish to pursue claims against their healthcare providers would benefit from the assistance of a skilled attorney. Regardless, for various reasons, some people choose to proceed pro se. Doing so frequently results in the dismissal of their claims. Recently, a New York court discussed the liberal interpretation standards applied to pro se complaints in a case where it ultimately dismissed the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims. If you intend to pursue claims against your treatment providers, it is wise to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to discuss your options.

Case Setting

It is alleged that the plaintiff, without the assistance of an attorney, initiated legal action against the defendant doctors, medical centers, and other entities. The complaint set forth medical malpractice and civil rights violations related to surgeries the plaintiff received in 2008 and 2020. After granting the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, the court dismissed most of his claims but allowed him to amend his claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).

It is reported that the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding additional defendants and allegations. The court dismissed various claims with prejudice, including those related to negligence, medical malpractice, Section 1983 claims, and Privacy Act claims, among others. The plaintiff was given leave to amend his RICO claims but ultimately did not assert any in the amended complaint. Instead, he included new claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA“), alleging negligence and wrongful acts by federal government employees. The court then reviewed the complaint for sufficiency. Continue Reading ›