Syracuse Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

New York Court Reverses Verdict Finding No Surgical Malpractice as Against the Weight of the Evidence

Published on: June 25, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In most surgical malpractice cases, the plaintiff will elect to have a jury decide whether the defendant doctor should be held liable for the plaintiff’s harm. Juries do not always assess liability accurately, however, and in some cases, a jury will issue a verdict that is in opposition to the clear evidence of the case. If the jury’s verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the court may set it aside, as illustrated in a recent New York surgical malpractice case in which the jury found the defendant was not liable despite substantial evidence that the defendant did not meet the standard of care. If you were harmed by surgical malpractice it is prudent to meet with a proficient Syracuse surgical malpractice lawyer to discuss your case and what damages you may be able to recover.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the plaintiff underwent a surgical procedure that was performed by the defendant. During the surgery, the defendant failed to appropriately inspect the plaintiff’s bowel and therefore failed to observe that the plaintiff suffered a perforation in her bowel. The plaintiff subsequently developed peritonitis, fell into a coma, and suffered gastrointestinal, respiratory, and organ failure. She subsequently filed a malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. Following a trial, a jury issued a verdict in favor of the defendant, finding in part that the defendant did not deviate from the applicable standard of care. The plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the verdict, arguing that it was against the weight of the evidence.

Setting Aside a Verdict That is Against the Weight of the Evidence

Under New York law, it is well established that when a verdict is against the weight of the evidence it will be set aside. A verdict will be found to be against the weight of the evidence when the evidence introduced at trial weighed so heavily in favor of the party moving to set aside the verdict, that the jury could not have reached the verdict based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Court Discusses Appropriate Venue in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: June 20, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In most cases, as the plaintiff is the party that commences a lawsuit, he or she chooses the venue in which an action will be heard. In certain instances, however, the defendant can move for a change of venue, which the court may grant if it finds that the forum chosen by the plaintiff is not appropriate. In a recent New York appellate court case in which the plaintiff alleged harm due to the failure to diagnose her husband in a timely manner, the court discussed what constitutes an appropriate forum in a medical malpractice lawsuit. If you the suffered the loss of a loved one due to a doctor’s negligent failure to diagnose an injury or illness you should speak with an experienced Syracuse failure to diagnose malpractice lawyer regarding your options for seeking damages.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff’s husband treated with the defendant physician at the defendant hospital. The plaintiff’s husband ultimately died due to an aneurysmal AV fistula. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants, alleging medical malpractice due to the failure to diagnose the plaintiff’s husband in a timely manner, wrongful death, and lack of informed consent. The defendants filed a motion to change the venue from one county to another. The court denied the motion and the defendants appealed.

Appropriate Venue in a Medical Malpractice Case

Under New York law, the court can change the place of a trial in an action where the county in which the lawsuit was filed is not the proper county. For the court to grant a defendant’s motion to dismiss, the defendant must prove that the venue chosen by the plaintiff is improper and that his or her chosen venue is proper. If the defendant meets this burden, the plaintiff can oppose the motion by showing that the venue he or she selected is proper. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses When a Failure to Diagnose Proximately Causes Harm

Published on: June 12, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

If you suffered damages due to your doctor’s failure to diagnose or treat an illness, connecting your doctor’s inadequate care to your harm is essential to present a successful case. This was illustrated in a case recently ruled upon by the appellate division of the Supreme Court of New York, in which the court found that the doctor’s failure to diagnose the plaintiff did not result in her ultimate harm, and dismissed the plaintiff’s case. If you were injured by a doctor’s failure to diagnose or treat your illness it is critical to retain a trusted Syracuse hospital malpractice attorney to set forth persuasive arguments to show that your doctor should be liable for your damages.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Treatment

Reportedly, the plaintiff presented to the emergency room of the defendant hospital where she was treated and released, with complaints of ear pain. She was later diagnosed with an ear infection by another treatment provider, and ultimately suffered hearing loss. She subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant hospital and defendant emergency room physician, alleging that the failure to diagnose her ear infection caused her to sustain hearing loss. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. The defendants appealed and on appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court ruling.

Proximate Cause

On appeal, the court stated that the defendants established as a matter of law that they did not depart from the applicable standard of care in rendering treatment to the plaintiff. Specifically, the defendants’ expert affidavits stated that further testing or a referral to an otolaryngologist was not indicated by the results of the plaintiff’s physical examination or the symptoms she described. Further, the reports established that to the extent the defendants deviated from the standard of care in failing to diagnose the plaintiff’s ear infection, any departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s alleged harm. Under New York law, proximate cause is established in a medical malpractice case when it is a substantial factor in bringing about the alleged harm.

NY Court Discusses What Constitutes a Doctor-Patient Relationship in an Orthopedic Malpractice Case

Published on: June 6, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

One of the essential elements of any medical malpractice claim is a doctor-patient relationship. While in most instances, whether a doctor-patient relationship exists is not disputed in some cases the status of the relationship between the injured party and the physician that allegedly caused the injured party harm is not clear. This was illustrated in a recent New York case in which the plaintiff alleged that he was injured due to medical malpractice committed during an independent medical examination that was conducted by an orthopedist for insurance purposes. If you sustained injuries due to orthopedic malpractice it is in your best interest to retain a skilled Syracuse orthopedic malpractice attorney as soon as possible to represent you in your pursuit of compensation.

Factual Background of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff sustained injuries to his left shoulder in a car accident. He subsequently presented to the defendant orthopedist for an independent medical examination for insurance purposes. During the examination, the defendant reportedly applied strong pressure to the plaintiff’s left kneecap, causing him pain. The defendant then held the plaintiff’s left arm and bent it, causing a popping sound and extreme pain. The plaintiff subsequently required injections in his left shoulder and other additional treatment. He filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff could not recover as a matter of law because no doctor-patient relationship existed.

New York Court Discusses Parameters of Continuous Treatment Doctrine in Failure to Diagnose Malpractice Case

Published on: May 29, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Under New York law, a plaintiff who wishes to pursue a medical malpractice claim arising out of a doctor’s negligent failure to diagnose and treat the plaintiff in an appropriate time frame must file a lawsuit within two years and six months of the date of the alleged harm. While certain factors, such as the doctor’s ongoing treatment of the plaintiff will toll the statute of limitations, not all treatment constitutes continuous treatment for purposes of tolling the statute. A New York appellate court recently discussed what treatment is sufficient to toll the statutory period, in a case arising out of alleged ophthalmic malpractice. If you suffered harm due to your physician’s failure to provide you with a proper diagnosis in a timely manner you should consult a trusted Syracuse failure to diagnose malpractice attorney to discuss the circumstances surrounding your harm and what damages you may be able to recover.

Factual Background of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against the defendant ophthalmic practice and defendant ophthalmologist due to the failure to promptly diagnose and treat the plaintiff’s glaucoma. The alleged malpractice occurred on February 25, 2011, July 15, 2011, and December 6, 2013. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s case as time-barred. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion, and the defendants appealed.

Care Under the Continuous Treatment Doctrine

A defendant arguing that a plaintiffs’ medical malpractice lawsuit is barred by the applicable statute of limitations must set forth prima facie evidence that the time in which the plaintiff was required to commence his or her lawsuit has expired. If the defendant establishes the statutory period has passed, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise a material issue of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous treatment doctrine.
Continue Reading ›

New York Court Addresses Scope of Informed Consent

Published on: May 24, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Any time a person needs to undergo a surgical procedure, the doctor performing the procedure is required to obtain the person’s informed consent. In other words, the doctor must explain to the person the risks, benefits, and potential outcomes of the surgery, and obtain consent from the person to proceed with the procedure. Even if a doctor obtains informed consent prior to performing a procedure, if the doctor exceeds the scope of the consent it may constitute surgical malpractice, as discussed in a recent case ruled on by a New York court of appeals. If your surgeon did not obtain your valid consent prior to your surgery and you suffered harm as a result you should speak with a trusted Syracuse surgical malpractice attorney who can assist you in seeking any compensation you may be owed.

Factual Background of the Surgical Procedure

Reportedly, the defendant doctor performed an exploratory laparoscopic surgical procedure on the plaintiff at the defendant hospital. Prior to undergoing the procedure, the surgeon obtained consent from the plaintiff to remove her fallopian tubes in the event a malignancy was discovered during the surgery. The plaintiff underwent the procedure, during which her fallopian tubes were removed despite the fact that no malignancy was found.

It is reported that the plaintiff then filed a surgical malpractice claim against the defendants. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for failure to serve the complaint in a timely manner and for failure to state a meritorious claim. The trial court denied the defendants’ motions, and the defendants appealed.
Continue Reading ›

New York Court Explains Proximate Cause in Hospital Malpractice Case

Published on: May 22, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

There are several elements an injured party must establish to successfully prove a hospital malpractice claim. Thus, even if a person can show a hospital breached the standard of care, the breach may not be actionable if it did not result in any harm. this was illustrated in a case recently decided by a New York appellate court, in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint due to the failure to show that the departure from the standard of care resulted in the harm alleged. If you sustained an injury or illness due to hospital malpractice it is critical to engage a proficient Syracuse hospital malpractice attorney as soon as possible to help you pursue the full amount of damages you may be owed.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Treatment and Alleged Harm

Reportedly, the plaintiff presented to the defendant hospital when she was six weeks pregnant, with complaints of bleeding and severe pain. She underwent a blood test and an ultrasound to determine whether she had an intrauterine pregnancy, an ectopic pregnancy, or was suffering a miscarriage. The radiologist who interpreted the ultrasound determined that the plaintiff had a single intrauterine pregnancy. She was discharged from the hospital and directed to follow-up with her gynecologist.

It is alleged that the following day the plaintiff visited the defendant obstetrician, who ran additional bloodwork and advised the plaintiff that based on her bloodwork and the preliminary report from the radiologist that she was having a miscarriage. That same day, the defendant hospital issued an amended radiology report in which it stated that it was not certain whether there was a gestational sac in the uterus. The amended report was not sent to the defendant obstetrician. Approximately six weeks later, the plaintiff was diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy and underwent surgery to remove her left fallopian tube.
Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Reduction of Liability Based on Proportion of Fault in Multi-Defendant Malpractice Case

Published on: May 14, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

When a patient is provided the wrong medication or the wrong dosage of a properly prescribed medication it may result in significant harm and in some cases, death. Often times multiple care providers will be responsible for administering the wrong dosage of medication to a plaintiff. In such cases, New York law provides that if a defendant is less than 50% responsible for the plaintiff’s harm, the defendant is only liable for its proportionate share of the plaintiff’s non-economic damages. A New York appellate court recently analyzed the nuances of this law in a medication error malpractice case in which one of the defendants settled prior to trial. If you were harmed due to a medication error, it is critical to retain a knowledgeable Syracuse medication error malpractice attorney to assist you in pursuing damages.

Facts Regarding the Decedent’s Treatment

Reportedly, the decedent was admitted to the defendant hospital for left-sided weakness and was subsequently diagnosed with having a transient ischemic attack. At the time of her admission, the decedent was taking a cholesterol-lowering medication that potentially could cause a breakdown of muscles and kidney damage when taken in large doses. While she was in the hospital, she was prescribed four times her prior dosage of the cholesterol-lowering medication.

It is alleged that the decedent was transferred to a rehabilitation facility, where she continued to receive the increased dosage of the cholesterol-lowering medication. The decedent’s condition deteriorated, and she ultimately died of kidney failure. The plaintiff, who was the executor of the decedent’s estate, file a medical malpractice lawsuit against the hospital and the rehabilitation facility.
Continue Reading ›

Court Rules the New York Continuous Treatment Doctrine Does Not Toll the Statute of Limitations for the Failure to Diagnose

Published on: May 4, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice cases, like any civil lawsuit, must be pursued within the time frame established by the statute of limitations. While the courts strictly construe the statute of limitations for pursuing a medical malpractice claim in New York, there are certain circumstances that allow a plaintiff to toll the statutory period, such as the continuous treatment doctrine. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York recently held the continuous treatment doctrine does not toll the statute of limitations for a failure to diagnose, in a case in which the plaintiff who was harmed by his doctor’s failure to diagnose and treat his kidney cancer in a timely manner sought leave to amend his complaint to add additional claims. If you sustained damages due to your physician’s failure to diagnose or treat your illness, it is vital to recovery to meet with a proficient Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to discuss your case.

The Plaintiff’s Care

It is alleged that the plaintiff treated at the defendant hospital for kidney issues for several years. He began treating in 2006 when a lesion was observed on his kidney on a CT scan. Subsequent scans in 2009, 2010, and 2011, showed the lesion as well, but no diagnosis or treatment was provided for the lesion. In 2011, the plaintiff treated with a urologist who advised him to wait six months and then follow-up, and in 2012 he underwent an ultrasound that indicated the lesion was suspicious for carcinoma. He then underwent surgery to remove the lesion, which was diagnosed as renal cell carcinoma.

It is reported that the plaintiff subsequently filed a malpractice lawsuit against the hospital due to the delay in diagnosing his cancer. The plaintiff’s complaint only included the defendant’s negligent failure to diagnose his cancer from 2009 onward, as the earlier claims were precluded by the statute of limitations. The defendant then produced an expert report that stated that there was no progression of the cancer from 2009 to 2012. In response, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, to add additional negligence claims for the failure to properly diagnose his cancer from 2006 to 2009, arguing that the amendment was permitted under the continuous treatment doctrine.

Court Explains the Standard for Assessing a Jury’s Damage Award in a Obstetric Malpractice Case

Published on: April 26, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In an obstetric malpractice case in which the plaintiff alleges inadequate care harmed a child, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving not only that the defendant obstetrician’s negligent care was the cause of the harm, but also the damages caused by the harm. In most cases, a jury assessing damages for the harm caused to a child at birth will assess the cost of the child’s ongoing treatment and the financial detriment to the child in the future due to his or her injuries. While the court is reluctant to disturb a jury’s findings, in cases where the verdict is deemed unreasonable, the verdict may be overturned. This was demonstrated in a recent New York case in which the court found that the jury’s damages award for harm caused by obstetric malpractice materially deviated from what is reasonable. If your child was injured by obstetric malpractice it is vital to retain a capable Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to assist you in your pursuit of compensation.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiffs’ Care

Reportedly, the plaintiff’s mother was under the care of the defendant obstetrician during her pregnancy. She was diagnosed with cervical insufficiency, and the plaintiff was subsequently born at 24 weeks gestation and allegedly suffered multiple neurological injuries. The plaintiff’s mother subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that the defendant deviated from the accepted standard of care by failing to offer her a cerclage to prevent premature birth and failing to obtain a maternal fetal medicine consult, which resulted in her the plaintiff’s harm. The case was tried in front of a jury, which awarded the plaintiff a total of $20 million in pain and suffering, lost earnings of $113,000, and additional damages for therapy. The defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

The Standard for Evaluating a Verdict

Under New York law, what constitutes an appropriate damages award is a question for the plaintiff, and it will usually not be disturbed unless the court finds the jury materially deviated from what would be considered reasonable compensation. In determining what constitutes reasonable compensation, the court should look at the relevant precedent of similar cases. In the subject case, the court reviewed cases relied upon by both the plaintiff and the defendant in support of what constituted reasonable damages. The court ultimately found the cases produced by the defendant to be more persuasive and determined the damages awarded to the plaintiff for pain and suffering materially deviated from what is reasonable in light of the nature and extent of his injuries. The court denied the defendant’s motion as to the remainder of the damages, however.
Continue Reading ›