Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

New York Court Explains the Continuous Treatment Doctrine

Published on: August 12, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Suffering complications after surgery can be devastating, but waiting too long to pursue a medical malpractice claim may prevent an injured patient from ever obtaining relief. Although ongoing care can sometimes extend New York’s filing deadline, not every follow-up visit, therapy session, or referral qualifies as continuous treatment. As a recent New York opinion demonstrates, courts closely examine who provided the care, whether the providers had a continuing relationship, and whether both parties anticipated additional treatment. If negligent orthopedic treatment caused you lasting harm, you should speak to a Rochester medical malpractice attorney promptly to protect your rights.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent right carpal tunnel release and nerve transfer surgery by the defendant physician in December 2020. After limited improvement, the physician performed an additional ulnar nerve procedure in April 2021. The plaintiff continued outside therapy. In September 2021, the physician left the defendant orthopedic practice and later joined another institution.

Reportedly, the plaintiff visited another provider at the orthopedic practice in October 2021 but skipped the recommended follow-ups. Instead, he followed the physician to the new institution for visits in November and December 2021. At the final visit, the physician reviewed studies, discussed intervention for persistent hand problems, and recommended a return within three months. The plaintiff never scheduled another appointment. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Assesses Evidence in Emergency Room Malpractice Case

Published on: August 7, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

A missed pulmonary embolism can transform a treatable condition into a life-threatening medical emergency. When a patient arrives at an emergency department with symptoms that may point to a dangerous blood clot, providers must decide whether the available evidence warrants advanced diagnostic testing. If providers do not order such testing, it may give rise to a medical malpractice claim. As a recent New York opinion demonstrates, the strength and specificity of expert testimony can determine whether the claim proceeds. If you suffered harm because health care providers failed to diagnose a serious condition promptly, you should speak to a Rochester medical malpractice attorney who can help you evaluate your rights.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff went to the hospital’s emergency department with pain and breathing-related concerns. Providers documented severe right rib or flank pain, normal cardiovascular and respiratory examinations, a negative chest X-ray, and no chest pain complaint. A resident considered kidney stones, while the defendant physician also considered infection, pulmonary embolism, and acute coronary syndrome. The physician concluded that the presentation did not suggest the latter two conditions and ordered further evaluation.

Reportedly, the defendant physician treated the plaintiff from approximately 6:20 a.m. until 8:00 a.m., then transferred care to the day shift. After reviewing abdominal CT results, later providers reassessed the possibility of pulmonary embolism. They ordered an EKG and a D-dimer test but declined to order a CT pulmonary angiogram, which uses contrast dye. The plaintiff returned to the hospital five weeks later, and providers diagnosed a pulmonary embolism. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Explains Discovery Rule in Cancer Malpractice Cases

Published on: July 15, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Patients harmed by a delayed cancer diagnosis often do not discover the negligence until long after the opportunity for early treatment has passed. Historically, many valid medical malpractice claims were dismissed because the statute of limitations expired before the patient learned that a healthcare provider failed to recognize the signs of cancer. New York’s enactment of the cancer discovery rule significantly changed that landscape by allowing certain delayed diagnosis claims to proceed even when they otherwise would have been untimely. A recent New York ruling demonstrates how the statute’s revival provision can preserve a patient’s right to pursue compensation for negligent failure to diagnose cancer. If you or a loved one suffered harm because a healthcare provider failed to timely diagnose cancer, it is in your best interest to speak with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney about your rights as soon as possible.

Factual Setting and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice action asserting that two physicians failed to timely diagnose and treat the plaintiff’s breast cancer. The complaint alleged that the defendants did not recommend additional diagnostic testing, including a mammogram, when such testing was medically indicated, allowing the cancer to remain undetected. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that any claims arising from conduct occurring before December 11, 2015, as well as all claims against one physician, were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court agreed and dismissed those portions of the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Discovery Rule in Cancer Malpractice Cases

On appeal, the court reversed the trial ruling. In doing so, the court addressed whether New York’s cancer discovery rule and its statutory revival provision permitted the plaintiffs to pursue claims that otherwise would have been untimely under the traditional statute of limitations governing medical malpractice actions. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Examines Duties Imposed on Surgeons

Published on: July 6, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Successful surgery begins long before the first incision. Physicians must evaluate available medical records, review appropriate diagnostic imaging, and develop a surgical plan that accounts for a patient’s individual anatomy. When a surgeon proceeds without obtaining information that could materially affect the procedure, serious complications may result, giving rise to a medical malpractice claim. A recent New York decision illustrates how disputes over preoperative planning and informed consent can prevent dismissal of a malpractice action before trial. If you suffered injuries because of negligent surgical planning or treatment, it is advisable to meet with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to discuss your rights.

Fact of the Case and Procedural Posture

Allegedly, the defendant surgeon performed gallbladder removal surgery on the plaintiff. During the operation, however, the surgeon was unable to locate the plaintiff’s gallbladder. A subsequent MRI revealed that the plaintiff did not have a gallbladder. The plaintiff thereafter commenced a medical malpractice action alleging, among other things, that the surgeon departed from accepted medical practice by failing to obtain preoperative imaging, including a CT scan or MRI, that would have disclosed the absence of the gallbladder before surgery. The plaintiff also asserted a claim based on lack of informed consent. Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of both causes of action, and the trial court denied the motion. The defendant appealed.

Duties Imposed on Surgeons

On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment. The court first reviewed the standards governing medical malpractice actions, explaining that a physician seeking summary judgment must establish either that there was no departure from accepted medical practice or that any alleged departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s injuries. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Shields From Medical Malpractice Liability

Published on: June 12, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

The COVID-19 pandemic placed extraordinary demands on hospitals and healthcare providers throughout New York, prompting lawmakers to enact temporary legal protections for medical professionals responding to the public health emergency. Those protections, however, did not automatically shield every healthcare provider from liability. Instead, courts must carefully examine whether a patient’s treatment was actually affected by pandemic-related conditions and whether the provider’s conduct falls within the statute’s scope. A recent New York decision demonstrates how courts evaluate these issues when deciding whether a medical malpractice claim may proceed. If you believe you suffered injuries because of negligent medical care, you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to determine whether emergency immunity laws may affect your case.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital in April 2020 after experiencing fever, respiratory symptoms, and an abnormal electrocardiogram. He tested positive for COVID-19, later required mechanical ventilation, and remained hospitalized for several weeks before being discharged to a rehabilitation facility. During his hospitalization, he developed pressure ulcers and other tissue injuries. Shortly after his discharge, he returned to the hospital because of additional medical complications and again tested positive for COVID-19 before ultimately returning to rehabilitation.

Reportedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action against the hospital and several physicians, asserting that they departed from accepted standards of medical care by failing to prevent and treat his pressure ulcers properly. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that they were immune from liability under New York’s Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act because the plaintiff’s care occurred during the height of the COVID-19 emergency when hospital operations were significantly affected by staffing shortages, resource limitations, and emergency treatment protocols. The plaintiff opposed the motion, contending that the defendants’ conduct constituted gross negligence and therefore fell outside the statute’s protections. Continue Reading ›

New York Courts Evaluate Conflicting Expert Reports in Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: June 6, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice lawsuits often involve complicated medical issues that require expert testimony to help courts determine whether healthcare providers complied with accepted standards of care. When qualified experts disagree about what happened or whether a provider acted negligently, those disputes generally must be resolved by a jury rather than a judge. This was illustrated in a recent New York decision in which conflicting expert opinions prevented the defendants from obtaining summary judgment, allowing the injured patients to proceed to trial. If you or a loved one suffered harm because of negligent medical care, you should promptly speak with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to discuss your legal rights and potential claims.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent a medical abortion and later experienced prolonged heavy bleeding, anemia, and other complications. She continued receiving follow-up care from her obstetrical providers, where blood testing eventually revealed critically low hemoglobin levels. The plaintiff contended that her healthcare providers failed to timely recognize and respond to her worsening condition, delayed communicating life-threatening laboratory results, and failed to properly diagnose retained products of conception and infection. After her condition deteriorated, she was admitted to a hospital, underwent additional treatment, and later experienced respiratory complications that ultimately resulted in severe neurological injuries.

Reportedly, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against multiple healthcare providers, asserting that numerous departures from accepted medical practice caused her injuries. Following discovery, several defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the medical care they provided complied with accepted standards and that none of their actions caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff opposed the motions by submitting expert opinions challenging the defendants’ evidence and identifying numerous departures from accepted medical practice. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Addresses Expert Testimony Requirements in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: May 14, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice cases frequently turn on competing expert opinions regarding whether a healthcare provider departed from accepted standards of care and whether any alleged negligence caused a patient’s injuries. As a result, courts closely scrutinize expert submissions, particularly when a party seeks to defeat a motion for summary judgment. A recent New York ruling demonstrates the importance of presenting expert testimony that is both reliable and sufficiently tailored to the medical issues in dispute. If you lost a loved one due to negligent medical treatment, it is important to understand your legal rights, and you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the decedent was receiving outpatient dialysis treatment at the defendant’s facility in August 2018 when he suffered a fall. Following the incident, he was transported to a hospital, where medical providers performed a CT scan of his head before discharging him later that same day. The decedent subsequently returned to the dialysis facility for additional treatments, and no significant concerns were documented over the next several weeks.

It is alleged that on September 13, 2018, the decedent displayed signs of confusion during a dialysis appointment. He was later evaluated at a hospital, where a second CT scan revealed the presence of a subdural hematoma. The decedent remained hospitalized and ultimately passed away on September 27, 2018. Following his death, the plaintiff commenced an action seeking damages for medical malpractice, wrongful death, and related claims against the dialysis facility and others. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Clarifies Limits on Expanding Nursing Home Liability Claims

Published on: May 8, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice and wrongful death cases involving nursing homes often raise questions about whether plaintiffs can broaden their claims as litigation progresses. While courts generally permit parties to clarify allegations and provide additional factual details, they distinguish between amplifying existing claims and introducing entirely new legal theories. A recent New York decision highlights this important procedural rule and explains why plaintiffs cannot use a supplemental bill of particulars to add a new statutory cause of action that was not included in the original complaint. If you lost a loved one due to negligent medical care in a nursing home or rehabilitation facility, you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims.

Factual and Procedural Background

Allegedly, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice and wrongful death action against a rehabilitation and healthcare facility and other defendants after the death of their adult son. According to the complaint, the decedent resided at the facility and regularly received care there. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants failed to properly administer a course of Heparin and that this failure caused the decedent to suffer cardiac arrest in September 2017, resulting in his death shortly thereafter.

New York Court Disusses Discovery in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: April 10, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice cases involving pediatric injuries often require extensive discovery to fully evaluate the nature and extent of a child’s condition, the treatment provided, and any underlying factors that may affect causation. When discovery requests are disputed, courts must balance the need for broad disclosure with the protection of vulnerable parties, particularly when young children are involved. A recent New York opinion illustrates how courts approach discovery disputes in complex malpractice claims and reinforces that parties cannot avoid disclosure without a clear legal basis. If your child suffered harm due to improper medical treatment, it is critical to understand your rights, and you should talk to a Rochester medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims.

Factual and Procedural Background

Allegedly, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice action seeking damages on behalf of an infant plaintiff, claiming that the defendants failed to properly diagnose and treat a fracture in the child’s leg, resulting in a limb length discrepancy.

It is alleged that the injury occurred when the infant plaintiff was approximately four years old and that the defendants’ failure to provide appropriate medical care caused long-term complications affecting the child’s growth and development. Continue Reading ›

Court Discusses Breaches of the Standard of Care in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: April 6, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Surgical malpractice cases often center on whether physicians took appropriate steps to identify and protect critical anatomical structures during procedures. Even when a complication is known, courts must determine whether it resulted from accepted risks or from preventable errors in technique, monitoring, or judgment. A recent New York ruling demonstrates how conflicting expert opinions regarding surgical conduct can prevent dismissal and require a jury to resolve key issues of negligence and causation. If you suffered a life-altering injury following surgery, you may be owed damages, and it is in your best interest to meet with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

Factual History and Procedural Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action seeking damages for injuries sustained during a surgical procedure, claiming that the defendants caused permanent vocal cord damage following a parathyroidectomy.

It is alleged that the plaintiff underwent surgery to address a diagnosed endocrine condition and that the procedure was performed by a primary surgeon with assistance from a resident physician. The plaintiff later developed persistent hoarseness and was ultimately diagnosed with vocal cord paralysis, which did not resolve. Continue Reading ›