Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

New York Court Discusses Wrongful Death in the Context of Medical Malpractice

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

A patient’s death can create new legal issues even when a malpractice lawsuit is already underway. Continuing the patient’s own injury claim and seeking wrongful death damages involve distinct rights, and a procedural safeguard for one may not preserve the other. A recent New York ruling allowed an administrator to recommence existing malpractice claims while dismissing a newly asserted wrongful death claim as untimely. The court also addressed defective service of the renewed lawsuit. If your family faces these questions after a patient’s death, consult a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to review the claims, deadlines, and procedural steps that apply.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the defendant hospital provided treatment that gave rise to a medical malpractice action filed by the decedent in March 2020. The decedent died the following month, and the action was stayed. In February 2024, the plaintiff sought substitution as estate administrator. The defendant requested dismissal because substitution had not occurred within a reasonable time.

Reportedly, the court dismissed the first action under CPLR 1021 in May 2024. The plaintiff appealed that dismissal and commenced a new action in August 2024. The defendant challenged the new lawsuit as duplicative, disputed service, and sought dismissal of its wrongful death claim as untimely. The plaintiff requested a default judgment and additional time to serve the defendant. The ruling resolves those trial court motions, rather than the pending appeal. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusess Claims Against Ambulance Companies

Published on: October 5, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

An inadequate ambulance response can leave a family confronting both a medical tragedy and difficult questions about legal responsibility. When municipal emergency services respond to a 911 call, a claim may require proof of a duty beyond that owed to the public generally. A recent New York decision dismissed a negligence action involving an ambulance dispatched without oxygen because the plaintiff failed to establish the required special relationship. Although the case concerns municipal negligence rather than conventional malpractice, it informs the investigation of emergency-care injuries. A Syracuse medical malpractice attorney can help assess the legal framework governing your loved one’s treatment.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the decedent experienced an asthma attack after which a coworker called 911. The plaintiff, individually and as estate administrator, sued the municipal defendants for negligence and wrongful death, contending that they dispatched an ambulance without oxygen needed to treat the decedent.

Reportedly, the plaintiff sought discovery sanctions in April 2024. After the defendants failed to oppose the motion, the trial court barred them from presenting liability evidence in dispositive motions or at trial. The defendants sought dismissal of the complaint and relief from that preclusion order. In December 2024, the court denied their requests and granted the plaintiff summary judgment on liability. The defendants appealed.

New York Court Discusses Expert Evidence in Hospital Malpractice Cases

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

An injury sustained in a hospital does not, by itself, establish that staff failed to provide proper care. A patient’s family must connect the challenged supervision or treatment to a departure from professional standards. A recent New York decision shows how a case can also turn on a missed filing deadline and whether the opposing expert evidence identifies a real dispute. Families evaluating a hospital fall can consult a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to understand the records, deadlines, and proof their claim may require.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the patient entered a hospital for treatment of a urinary tract infection. Staff assessed her as a fall risk and adopted safety measures. In June 2018, she fell while moving from a chair to her bed with the assistance of a patient engagement specialist and sustained injuries. The hospital discharged her to a nursing home later that month. She died in January 2020.

New York Court Discusses Timing of Surgery as Grounds for Medical Malpractice Claims

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

Surgery may be an accepted treatment for a condition yet still inappropriate at a particular stage, and performing the procedure may constitute medical malpractice. This was discussed in a recent New York decision, in which a patient challenged both the timing of a corrective procedure and the information he received before consenting. The court ultimately held that the defendants had not eliminated factual questions about the surgery, allowing the case to continue. If you are concerned that a procedure was performed too soon, you should speak with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney about the treatment record and your options.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff consulted a urologist in September 2018 for a condition that causes penile curvature. The physician performed plication surgery in May 2019. The plaintiff later questioned whether the disease was still progressing when the operation occurred. According to his claim, performing the procedure during that acute phase fell below accepted medical practice. He also challenged the consent process, maintaining that the defendants had not adequately addressed the risks and alternatives associated with surgery at that point in the disease.

Reportedly, the plaintiff sued the physician and his medical practice for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent. His claims also concerned other treatment, including therapy after surgery. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the entire complaint. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. The court reviewed the defendants’ proof separately as to the plication procedure and the remaining treatment rather than treating every allegation as one undifferentiated claim. Continue Reading ›

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 ›