Syracuse Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

New York Court Discusses Sufficiency of Medical Malpractice Expert Reports

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

Most medical malpractice cases hinge on the persuasiveness of each party’s expert reports. Thus, if a plaintiff’s report is deemed insufficient or inadequate, or the plaintiff’s expert is deemed unqualified to offer an opinion on the salient issues, the plaintiff’s report may be precluded, which will generally result in a dismissal of the plaintiff’s case. There are several factors that are assessed in evaluating whether a plaintiff’s report should be admitted into evidence, as discussed in a recent case decided by a New York district court, in which the plaintiff sought damages from the defendant government entity pursuant to the Federal Torts Claims Act. If you suffered harm at a government facility, it is prudent to speak with a trusted Syracuse medical malpractice attorney regarding the evidence you may need to prove liability.

Factual Background

Allegedly, the plaintiff visited the defendant government-owned facility for the treatment of an illness. She reportedly suffered harm when a nurse practitioner over-inflated a blood pressure cuff on her arm. Thus, she filed a medical malpractice claim against the defendant pursuant to the Federal Torts Claims Act. The defendant subsequently moved to preclude the plaintiff’s expert report and to have the plaintiff’s claims dismissed via summary judgment. After reviewing the evidence of the case, the court granted both motions.

Sufficiency of an Expert Report

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, an expert’s testimony will be admitted if it is based on facts or data, is the product of reliable principles that have been reliably applied to the facts of the case, and the expert possesses the necessary specialized knowledge to assist the trier of fact in determining the ultimate issues of the case. To determine whether an expert is qualified, the court assesses whether the expert’s area of specialty aligns with the subject matter of his or her proposed testimony. Thus, an expert may be insufficiently qualified if his or her expertise is deficient or too general.

Court Discusses Evidence Needed to Sustain a New York Pediatric Malpractice Claim

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

The crux of any New York medical malpractice is harm caused by the deviation from the standard of care. As such, regardless of the severity of injuries suffered by a plaintiff, if the plaintiff cannot establish that the injuries were caused by the defendant healthcare provider’s negligence, the plaintiff cannot recover compensation. This was reiterated in a recent New York pediatric malpractice case in which the court ruled that the plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to allow the plaintiff to prove liability as a matter of law. If you or a loved one sustained injury due to inadequate care rendered by a pediatrician, it is advisable to confer with a Syracuse pediatric malpractice attorney adept at assisting injured parties in the pursuit of damages.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff child was taken to the defendant pediatrician by her parents with various complaints. She was examined, but no diagnostic tests were administered, and she was not admitted to the hospital. She was ultimately diagnosed with numerous serious and permanent conditions, including congestive heart failure, viral myocarditis, and cardiopulmonary failure. The plaintiff subsequently filed a malpractice lawsuit against the defendant and numerous other providers, alleging they caused her grave harm by failing to diagnose her in a timely manner. The defendant moved for dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims against her via summary judgment. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion. The defendant appealed, however, and on appeal, the appellate court reversed, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant.

Establishing Liability for Hospital Malpractice

On appeal, the court stated that the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant, as the defendant set forth evidence via an expert affidavit that she did not depart from good and accepted medical practice, and that regardless, any alleged departure did not cause the plaintiff’s harm. Additionally, the court noted that the defendant’s affidavit was specific, detailed, and factual in nature, and addressed each allegation of negligence set forth by the plaintiff.

Court Discusses Relation-Back Doctrine in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: April 14, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases, like plaintiffs in other civil lawsuits, are subject to statutes of limitations they must abide by in order to retain the right to pursue damages. As such, if a plaintiff does not file a medical malpractice lawsuit in a timely manner, his or her claim may be dismissed. There are exceptions, however, such as when the relation-back doctrine applies to allow the court to toll the statute of limitations. This was discussed in a recent case decided by a New York court, in which the court ultimately found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the doctrine should apply. If you or a loved one suffered harm due to negligent care in a hospital, it is in your best interest to speak with a knowledgeable Syracuse hospital malpractice attorney regarding your right to pursue compensation.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff’s decedent was in a coma until she died in August 2016. The plaintiff was appointed her guardian in October 2006. In August 2008, the plaintiff instituted a wrongful death and medical malpractice action against the defendant hospital, arising out of the treatment of the plaintiff’s decedent. Subsequently, in October 2016, the plaintiff began a second wrongful death and medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant as well as two other defendants. The allegations in the second lawsuit were almost identical to those in the first. The new defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s second lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations, which required the lawsuit to be filed within two years and six months of when the plaintiff was appointed as his decedent’s guardian. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the relation-back doctrine applied to toll the statute of limitations.

The Relation-Back Doctrine

Under the relation-back doctrine, claims against a defendant in an amended pleading relate back to claims previously asserted against a co-defendant, as long as the defendants are united in interest. Typically, it applies to cases in which a party or cause of action is added to a lawsuit, but it can also apply to cases in which separate actions are consolidated. A court evaluating whether the relation-back doctrine should apply must conduct a three-part test. First, the court must determine whether both of the claims arise out of the same conduct. Then the court must assess whether the new party is united in interest with the previous defendant so that the new party can be charged with notice of the claims against him or her. Lastly, the new defendant must know that absent a mistake on behalf of the plaintiff, he or she would have been named as a defendant earlier.

New York Court Discusses Medical Malpractice Arising out of an Involuntary Commitment

Published on: April 4, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Under New York law, a person may be confined to a mental health institution against his or her will, for both the safety of the person and of other people the person may encounter. Sufficient grounds must exist to hold a person against his or her will, however, and if a hospital fails to abide by the standard of care in institutionalizing a patient, the hospital can be held liable for malpractice. This was demonstrated in a recent case filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which the plaintiff alleged numerous claims against the defendant hospital following his involuntary commitment, including medical malpractice claims. If you sustained damages due to a hospital’s failure to comply with the appropriate standard of care in rendering treatment, it is prudent to meet with a diligent Syracuse hospital malpractice attorney to discuss what you must do to recover damages.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Involuntary Commitment

It is reported that the plaintiff, who suffers from anxiety and diabetes, was receiving supportive services from a non-profit organization, including rental assistance and subsidies. He was mistreated on several occasions, after which he complained. Subsequently, an employee of the organization falsely accused the plaintiff of making threats of violence against him. As such, the organization called the police and asked them to transport the plaintiff to the hospital.

Allegedly, the police then took the plaintiff to the hospital, where he was involuntarily committed. He was asked if he intended to harm himself, to which he replied no. Nonetheless, he was told he would not be released unless he took certain pills. He took the pills but did not receive any other treatment. He was released the following day. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against the non-profit organization and the hospital, alleging that the hospital committed malpractice by admitting him against his will and failing to offer him proper treatment during his admission. The hospital moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims pursuant to the applicable rules of civil procedure.

Court Discusses the Grounds for Dismissing a Medical Malpractice Case in New York Via Summary Judgment

Published on: March 30, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

There are few things more devastating than suffering the loss of an infant prior to birth, and when the death is caused by negligent medical care, parents often wish to hold the incompetent care providers accountable. Thus, many parents of infants who lost their lives due to inadequate care choose to pursue medical malpractice claims. Even if parents have valid claims, however, their case may nonetheless be dismissed if not properly asserted or supported. A recent New York appellate court opinion in which the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s ob-gyn case highlighted the importance of thorough and aggressive representation. If you suffered the loss of your child due to incompetent treatment by an obstetrician-gynecologist, it is in your best interest to meet with a skillful Syracuse obstetrician-gynecologist malpractice attorney to discuss what you must do to recover damages.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff presented to the defendant hospital for treatment during her pregnancy. While she was at the defendant hospital, she underwent diagnostic tests, including a sonogram, pelvic examination, and fetal monitoring, all of which indicated that her unborn child was not in distress and that the plaintiff was not in labor. Unfortunately, however, the plaintiff’s child died prior to the plaintiff giving birth. The plaintiff proceeded to commence a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, arguing that the defendant’s negligence led to her child’s demise. The defendant moved to dismiss the case via summary judgment. The court granted the defendant’s motion, after which the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Grounds for Dismissing a Birth Injury Case Via Summary Judgment

On appeal, the court explained that the plaintiff’s case was dismissed due to insufficiencies in the plaintiff’s pleadings and expert affidavit. First, the court noted that the expert affidavit set forth a new theory of liability in response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which was impermissible. Further, the court stated that irrespective of the new theory of liability, which was not considered, the plaintiff’s expert affidavit failed to establish that a material issue of fact existed so as to require a trial. Specifically, the plaintiff’s expert did not address the conclusions or opinions of the defendant’s expert with regards to the sufficiency of care the plaintiff received when she presented to the defendant hospital. Further, the court found that plaintiff’s expert’s opinion that the plaintiff’s child would not have died in utero if the plaintiff performed certain tests was conclusory. As such, the court found that the plaintiff’s expert failed to establish a nexus between the harm suffered and the alleged malpractice.

New York Court Discusses Relation-Back Doctrine in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: March 27, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In some instances, while it is evident that a person suffered harm due to inadequate medical care, the identity of each physician that provided incompetent care will not immediately be clear. Although a plaintiff seeking damages in a medical malpractice lawsuit can add additional defendants after the lawsuit is filed, he or she generally must do so within the statute of limitations. There are some exceptions, however, such as when the relation-back doctrine applies. In a recent primary care malpractice case, a New York appellate court discussed the elements a plaintiff must prove for the relation-doctrine to apply. If you suffered damages due to negligent care from your primary care physician, it is advisable to consult a trusted Syracuse primary care malpractice attorney regarding your harm.

Factual Background

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s decedent presented to her primary care physician’s office for outpatient care, following a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. During her visit, she was treated by the defendant physician. She was admitted to the hospital the day after her visit, for complications due to her colitis. She returned to her primary care physician’s office a month after she was discharged from the hospital and was treated by a non-party physician employed by the defendant physician. Shortly thereafter, she returned to the hospital, where it was revealed that she had a gangrenous and perforated colon. She died one week later.

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. After conducting the depositions of the defendant and the non-party physician, the plaintiff moved to add the non-party physician as a defendant. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion, and the defendant appealed, arguing that the statute of limitations barred any additional claims.

New York Court Discusses a Supervising Physician’s Liability for Medical Malpractice

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

In many instances in which a person undergoes a surgical procedure, there are numerous physicians taking part in the surgery. Thus, there may be multiple physicians who may ultimately be held liable for a patient’s injuries if an error is committed during surgery. In a recent New York surgical malpractice case, the court assessed whether a supervising physician could be held liable for medical malpractice for errors committed during the surgery and, if so, the basis for imposing liability. If you or a loved one sustained injuries due to a negligently performed surgery, it is prudent to speak with a dedicated Syracuse surgical malpractice attorney regarding your potential claims.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent bariatric surgery to reduce the size of her stomach. The surgery was performed by the defendant bariatric surgeon, a second defendant surgeon, the defendant anesthesiologist, and the defendant nurse anesthetist. During the course of the surgery, two surgical instruments were stapled to the plaintiff’s stomach, which required a dissection and repair. The plaintiff then filed a medical malpractice action against the defendants. The defendant anesthesiologist moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion, finding that as the supervising anesthesiologist, he maintained responsibility for the anesthesia care team. The defendant appealed.

A Supervising Physician’s Liability for Medical Malpractice

On appeal the defendant argued, in part, that per his usual practice as the supervising anesthesiologist, he was present when the plaintiff was placed under anesthesia and when her breathing tube was placed, he was not present for the placement or removal of either of the instruments that were stapled to the plaintiff’s stomach. Moreover, he argued that the placement or removal of those instruments did not constitute key elements of the surgical procedural, that required supervision, but that the stapling of the instruments was solely a surgical complication. Lastly, he argued there was no relationship between his alleged failure to supervise the rest of the anesthesia team and the plaintiff’s injuries.

New York Court Factors Weighed in Assessing the Sufficiency of an Expert Report in a Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: March 13, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice cases often hinge on the sufficiency of each party’s expert affidavit. In other words, if the defendant produces expert testimony demonstrating that he or she did not depart from the standard of care, and the plaintiff fails to produce an affidavit that disputes the defendant’s expert’s assertions, the case may be dismissed. A New York appellate court recently discussed the factors considered in determining whether a plaintiff’s expert affidavit is insufficient to prevent dismissal or merely indicates issues that need to be resolved with regards to credibility, in an emergency room malpractice case. If you or a loved one suffered injuries due to inadequate care provided in an emergency room, it is wise to consult a trusted Syracuse emergency room malpractice attorney to discuss your case.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Harm

It is alleged that the plaintiff’s decedent was involved in a motor vehicle collision, after which she was removed from her vehicle and transported via ambulance to a nearby high school, where she was then picked up by a helicopter and transferred to the defendant medical center. At the defendant center, she was assessed by the trauma team, and it was determined she was suffering from pericardial tamponade. She was then transferred to an operating room but suffered a cardiac arrest during her transport.

Reportedly, the defendant surgeon performed a thoracotomy and repaired a tear in her atrium while members of the team performed CPR, but the efforts to restore a natural rhythm to the decedent’s heart failed, and she died. The plaintiff commenced a lawsuit against the defendant medical center, and defendant surgeon, alleging medical malpractice. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied. The defendants then appealed.

New York Court Discusses Grounds for Vacating Default Judgment in a Hospital Malpractice Case

Published on: March 6, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Typically, courts aim to assess medical malpractice cases based on their merit. In other words, the courts will determine if either party has presented sufficient evidence in support of their position to obtain a judgment as a matter of law, or if the case should proceed to trial. In some instances, however, a court will grant a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff based on the defendant’s failure to comply with procedural requirements. Recently, a New York appellate court assessed when a default judgment should be entered against a defendant for failing to respond to a plaintiff’s complaint in a hospital malpractice case. If you were harmed by negligent care you received in a hospital, it is advisable to meet with a proficient Syracuse hospital malpractice attorney regarding your potential causes of action.

Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was struck by a vehicle, which required her to undergo bilateral leg amputations. She filed a lawsuit against the defendant driver, and five years later, amended the complaint to assert medical malpractice claims against the defendant hospital where she underwent her amputations and the defendant surgeons who participated in her amputation. Each of the defendants was served, and the defendant hospital and first defendant surgeon filed motions to dismiss. The second defendant surgeon did not respond. The court granted the defendant hospital and first surgeon’s motions to dismiss. The defendant hospital then moved to reargue that the claim against the second surgeon should be dismissed, and the plaintiff filed a cross-motion to enter a default judgment against the second surgeon. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion, and the defendant hospital appealed. Additionally, the second surgeon filed a motion to vacate the judgment due to an excusable delay.

Grounds for Entering a Default Judgment

On appeal, the court noted that the defendant hospital employed the second surgeon at the time of the alleged harm, and therefore found that the hospital had standing to seek vacatur of the order granting default judgment. The court went on to explain that a defendant seeking to vacate a default granted for the failure to answer or appear must demonstrate a valid excuse for the default and a defense to the action that is potentially meritorious. Whether an excuse for a failure to respond is reasonable lies within the discretion of the court. Factors considered in determining whether an excuse is reasonable include the duration of the delay, whether there was prejudice to the opposing party, the public policy in favor of resolving a case on the merits, and whether the defendant acted willfully.

New York Court Discusses Sufficiency of Defense Expert Reports in Medical Malpractice Cases

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

In all medical malpractice cases filed in New York, the burden of proof is transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant and then back to the plaintiff. In other words, the plaintiff must delineate the alleged malpractice committed by the defendant via a bill of particulars. In turn, if the defendant wishes to have the case dismissed, he or she must refute each allegation in the bill of particulars with an expert report. In a recent case before a New York appellate court, the court explained what constitutes an expert report sufficient to obtain a dismissal in a hospital malpractice case. If you suffered damages during or after your admission to a hospital due to incompetent medical care, it is prudent to speak with a reliable Syracuse hospital malpractice attorney to discuss what compensation you may be able to pursue.

Factual Background

It is reported that the decedent underwent a procedure at the defendant hospital during which a stent was placed in his esophagus. The following day, he was discharged and directed to follow-up with his primary care physician if he suffered certain symptoms. The decedent died five days later. The plaintiff then filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the hospital and physician who performed the procedure, in which she alleged negligence during the procedure and in the post-discharge care of the decedent. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted with exception to the claims regarding post-discharge care. The defendants appealed.

Sufficiency of Defense Expert Reports in Medical Malpractice Cases

In a medical malpractice case, a defendant seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims via summary judgment must establish either that he or she did not deviate from the standard of care or that any deviation did not cause the plaintiff’s alleged harm. In order to sustain this burden, the defendant must rebut and address each specific allegation of malpractice that is set forth in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars.