Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Patients place immense trust in their surgeons to perform operations safely and to promptly identify complications when they arise. When this trust is breached, the resulting harm can be catastrophic. A recent decision from a New York court demonstrates that where qualified medical experts disagree over whether a surgeon’s actions met accepted medical standards, such disputes are properly left to a jury. If you or a loved one has suffered harm after surgery, it is essential to consult with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to understand your rights.

Facts and Procedural Background

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic sigmoidectomy, a surgery to remove part of the colon, at a New York City hospital operated by the defendant public health corporation. Allegedly, prior testing had revealed a likely malignant mass obstructing the plaintiff’s sigmoid colon, prompting the surgical procedure. The surgery, performed by a staff surgeon, included a loop ileostomy to divert bowel contents through an abdominal port. During the operation, the surgeon discovered an “incomplete donut,” meaning that the circular tissue ring from the surgical stapler did not form a complete circle, potentially indicating a defect at the connection site between the two bowel ends.

Allegedly, the surgeon performed an air leak test to ensure that the surgical connection between bowel segments was intact, and when no leak was detected, the procedure was completed. Postoperatively, the plaintiff experienced hypotension and cardiac complications and was soon diagnosed with septic shock. A second surgery performed two days later revealed a partially necrotic and leaking anastomosis, which was resected and revised. The plaintiff remained intubated for an extended period, developed encephalopathy, and was ultimately discharged to a rehabilitation facility months later. Continue Reading ›

Patients trust their surgeons to perform procedures with precision and to recognize any complications that arise afterward. When that trust is broken, the results can be devastating. A recent decision from a New York court highlights how disputes over expert testimony and surgical standards often determine whether a malpractice case proceeds to trial. The case illustrates that even when a complication is a known surgical risk, physicians may still be held accountable if they fail to meet the accepted standard of care. If you or someone you love has suffered harm following a surgical procedure, you should speak with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney experienced in handling complex surgical injury claims to learn about your legal rights and options.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a Cesarean section performed by the defendants at a hospital operated by one of the defendant medical entities. During the course of the surgery, the plaintiff sustained a bowel perforation, a serious complication that, while recognized as a potential risk of Cesarean delivery, can cause severe and lasting harm if not promptly diagnosed and treated. It is alleged that after the surgery, the plaintiff began to experience nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and an elevated heart rate within two days of the procedure. These symptoms were indicative of a bowel perforation, yet the defendants failed to recognize the severity of her condition, delaying necessary treatment.

Patients who undergo fertility treatment place tremendous trust in their providers to safeguard their reproductive material. When mistakes occur in the storage or handling of such material, the consequences can be profound, leaving patients not only without the opportunity to conceive but also with complex legal battles. A recent decision from a New York court highlights how courts assess negligence and related claims when frozen oocytes are allegedly mishandled. If you or a loved one has suffered harm connected to fertility treatment, it is crucial to consult with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney experienced in handling such cases to understand your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent an egg retrieval procedure in 2014, during which eighteen oocytes were collected. Sixteen were frozen for future use, while two were discarded as nonviable. The frozen oocytes were initially stored at one facility and later transferred to another clinic’s custody in 2016.

Allegedly, during a visit to the new facility, the plaintiff observed that her oocytes were left outside of cryogenic storage tanks for a period of time, causing her concern about their viability. The plaintiff reported her concerns to the facility’s owner, who assured her that an investigation would take place, but no follow-up occurred. Continue Reading ›

Patients place enormous trust in hospitals and physicians to provide safe, attentive, and competent care. When mistakes occur, the consequences can be devastating for families, and legal action may be the only way to seek accountability. Yet, even strong claims can be lost when procedural hurdles, such as prior dismissals, prevent a court from reaching the merits of a case. A recent decision from a New York court illustrates how the doctrine of res judicata can bar medical malpractice claims, underscoring the importance of careful legal strategy from the outset. If you or a loved one has been harmed due to negligent medical care, it is essential to consult with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to protect your rights.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against multiple defendants, including the defendant hospital, alleging negligence in the care of her newborn infant in January and February 2015. In July 2017, the plaintiff filed an action in state court, which was later removed to federal court. There, the federal court ordered voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the claims against the United States to allow the plaintiff to complete the administrative exhaustion process required under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Allegedly, in February 2019, the plaintiff’s attorney moved to be relieved as counsel in both actions. The court scheduled a hearing for March 2019 that required the plaintiff’s appearance. When the plaintiff failed to appear, the state court granted counsel’s request to withdraw and dismissed the state action with prejudice. Continue Reading ›

When medical errors occur during labor and delivery, the consequences can be life-altering; not just for the newborn, but for the entire family. Recovering compensation can be challenging, though, as claims involving birth-related injuries often hinge on expert medical testimony. A recent decision from a New York court offers insight into how expert testimony is scrutinized under federal standards and how courts approach motions for summary judgment when causation and standard of care are in dispute. If you believe medical negligence contributed to your child’s injury at birth, you should talk to a Rochester medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims as soon as possible.

Factual Background

It is reported that the plaintiffs, a mother and her minor child, brought suit against the United States, a hospital, a health system, and two physicians, alleging that negligent medical care during labor, delivery, and neonatal treatment caused the child to suffer permanent injuries, including cerebral palsy and hemiplegia. The claims included three causes of action: negligence and/or medical malpractice, lack of informed consent, and loss of services based on the child’s anticipated inability to work.

It is alleged that the plaintiffs supported their case with expert testimony from physicians in the fields of obstetrics, anesthesiology, and pediatric neurology. These experts offered opinions connecting the alleged substandard care to the child’s neurological injuries. However, the defendants challenged the admissibility of those opinions, arguing that the plaintiffs’ experts lacked the proper qualifications or relied on speculative methods. Continue Reading ›

Timeliness is a critical factor in bringing a medical malpractice claim against a public hospital in New York. Under the General Municipal Law, plaintiffs must file a notice of claim within 90 days of the alleged malpractice. However, courts may permit a late filing if specific conditions are met. A recent decision from a New York court illustrates how such requests are evaluated, particularly when actual knowledge, reasonable excuse, and prejudice are at issue. If you have questions about whether your injury may give rise to a viable claim, a Rochester medical malpractice attorney can adivse you of your rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff received treatment at a public hospital operated by the defendant between January 22 and February 7, 2024. She first presented to the emergency department on January 22 with abdominal and chest pain. After initial diagnostic imaging, she was discharged without surgical intervention. She returned two days later and was diagnosed with a gangrenous and perforated gallbladder. An emergency cholecystectomy was performed on January 24. The plaintiff was discharged on January 28 and returned for a follow-up on February 7.

It is alleged that in the months following her discharge, the plaintiff continued to experience significant abdominal and back pain. Nearly a year later, diagnostic imaging revealed that a remnant of her gallbladder had been left behind during the earlier surgery. On March 7, 2025, she underwent corrective surgery to remove the residual tissue. The plaintiff subsequently filed a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim, asserting that the hospital staff negligently discharged her on January 22 and performed the initial cholecystectomy improperly. Continue Reading ›