Medical Malpractice

New York Court Explains Consequences of Failing to Comply with Discovery in a Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: August 7, 2022 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice cases are typically document-intensive, as both plaintiffs and defendants rely on medical records to support their positions, and discovery is a critical component of such cases. As such, if a party fails to comply with discovery requests, it may greatly impair their opponent’s ability to prove their claim or defense. The courts take a party’s refusal to answer discovery requests seriously and, as shown in a recent New York opinion issued in a medical malpractice case, may find it constitutes grounds for dismissing a case in its entirety. If you suffered injuries due to a negligently performed procedure, you might be owed compensation, and you should speak to a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to determine your rights.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff, who was from South Korea, presented to the defendant’s office for gynecologic care in November 2017. At that time, the defendant confirmed that the plaintiff was five weeks pregnant. Later that week, the defendant performed an abortion on the plaintiff, which the plaintiff alleged deviated from the accepted and good practice of medicine.

Reportedly, the plaintiff returned home to South Korea the following month, where a doctor advised her that she was nine weeks pregnant with an unhealthy fetus that was likely to suffer birth defects. She underwent a second abortion procedure that was successful. She subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, arguing that the negligently performed abortion caused her to sustain permanent losses and rendered her unable to work for several months. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Examines Medical Malpractice Claims Pursued by Non-Patients

Published on: June 19, 2022 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice cases typically arise in the context of a doctor-patient relationship. In other words, the plaintiff will usually be a patient hurt by the defendant’s negligent care. Under New York law, however, a doctor may be held liable for medical malpractice for harm suffered by someone other than their patients. This was explained in a recent New York ruling issued in a case in which the plaintiff pursued claims against a psychiatrist following harm caused by the psychiatrist’s patient. If you were hurt because of a doctor’s carelessness, you might be owed damages, and it is in your best interest to consult a Rochester medical malpractice attorney.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was kidnapped and sexually assaulted by a man who was treating with the defendant psychiatric clinic for mental health issues. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the man and against the clinic and its professionals. As to the psychiatric clinic defendants, the plaintiff asserted medical malpractice claims. The psychiatric clinic defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they could not be liable for medical malpractice as the plaintiff was not their patient. The court disagreed and denied the motion, after which the defendant appealed.

Medical Malpractice Claims Pursued by Non-Patients

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court ruling. The defendants argued that doctors usually only owe a duty of care to their patients and that there was no special relationship that extended that duty to the plaintiffs in this case. The court disagreed. Specifically, the court explained that mental health professionals or psychiatrists owe their patients a duty to exercise professional judgment and offer treatment using a proper medical foundation. In some instances, though, that duty extends to the narrow group of individuals that the physician could expect to be affected by the treatment, but also to the public at large as well. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Explains Burdens of Proof in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: June 12, 2022 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

When people suffer harm in the course of receiving medical care, it is often due to the incompetence of their healthcare providers. Negligent healthcare providers, however, will rarely admit liability. In other words, the parties will dispute whether the medical acts in question were performed properly and, if not, whether they were the cause of the patient’s harm. Whichever party presents more compelling arguments typically prevails, but in some cases, the courts rule improvidently and dismiss a plaintiff’s medical malpractice case despite evidence that indicates they should be permitted to proceed with their claims. Recently, a New York court discussed the ground for granting summary judgment dismissal of medical malpractice claims in a case in which the plaintiff’s claims were ultimately reinstated. If you were hurt by a reckless physician, you should talk to a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer about your potential claims.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, who was 28 weeks pregnant, went to the defendant hospital with complaints of decreased fetal movement. The defendant’s residents examined the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was admitted to the hospital. The following morning the defendant ob-gyn examined the plaintiff’s fetal monitoring strip and recommended that the plaintiff’s care remain the same. The next day, a sonogram showed that the fetus had a weak heart rate, and the plaintiff underwent an emergency c-section.

Allegedly, the infant suffered severe brain damage due to the fact that he was deprived of oxygen before delivery. He died shortly after he was born. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit against the defendants. The defendant ob-gyn moved for summary judgment, and the court granted his motion. The plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Differences Between Negligence and Medical Malpractice Claims

Published on: June 5, 2022 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Under New York law, there are different statutes of limitations for pursuing negligence and medical malpractice actions. While such claims are similar, there are key differences between them, and if a party seeking damages for harm caused by a medical professional fails to properly characterize their claims, they may unintentionally waive their right to recover compensation. This was demonstrated in a recent New York opinion in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, finding that they were barred by the two-and-a-half-year statute of limitations that applies to medical malpractice actions. If you suffered harm due to the negligence of a doctor, it is important to confer with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney promptly to protect your rights.

Factual and Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent received medical care at the defendant hospital in September 2015 for unspecified health concerns. He died two weeks into his hospital admission. Approximately three years later, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant asserting wrongful death and medical malpractice claims. The defendant then moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim on the grounds it was barred by the two-and-a-half-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that her claims sounded in negligence and not medical malpractice. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Differences Between Negligence and Medical Malpractice Claims

On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim. In doing so, the court discussed the nuances between negligence and medical malpractice claims. The court noted that the distinction is subtle, and no sharp line divides the two. Rather, whether a claim sounds in medical malpractice or ordinary negligence turns on whether the behavior complained of involves an art or matter of medical science requiring special skills not typically possessed by lay people or whether the acts or omissions complained of could be evaluated on the basis of the common experience of the judge or jury. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Demonstrating First Responders Committed Medical Malpractice

Published on: May 30, 2022 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

First responders are often dispatched to provide emergency medical care to people suffering from critical health concerns. Tragically, however, first responders sometimes make fatal mistakes when offering acutely ill people care. In such instances, the first responders can often be held accountable for medical malpractice. Recently, a New York court discussed what evidence is needed to prove that first responders should be liable for negligent medical care in an opinion issued in a case in which the plaintiff’s decedent died following incompetent care. If you were hurt by the recklessness of a health care provider, you might be owed compensation, and you should speak to a Rochester medical malpractice attorney as soon as you can.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent suffered a seizure while working. The defendant paramedics who were employed by the defendant city responded to a 911 call the decedent’s co-workers placed. Within fifteen minutes, the decedent’s heart stopped. The defendant paramedics administered the decedent a drug per the instruction of the defendant doctor. The decedent never regained consciousness or the ability to breathe on his own. He died a month after the incident. His wife subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant asserting, among other things, medical malpractice and wrongful death claims. The decedent city moved for dismissal via summary judgment.

Demonstrating First Responders Committed Medical Malpractice

The court granted the defendant city’s motion in large part, dismissing most of the plaintiff’s claims. The court explained that when a medical malpractice claim is asserted against a municipality, the first issue the court must decide is whether the municipal entity was acting in a governmental capacity or engaged in a proprietary function when the claim arose. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Explains When Medical Malpractice Becomes a Constitutional Violation

Published on: May 15, 2022 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Typically, victims of medical negligence will pursue medical malpractice claims against the providers that caused their harm. In certain situations, though, incompetent medical care may give rise to a constitutional violation claim. Recently, a New York court issued an opinion differentiating between the two causes of action in a matter in which the plaintiff sought compensation following negligent treatment of a mental health issue. If you suffered harm due to delayed medical care, you have the right to seek damages, and you should contact a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to discuss your possible claims.

Factual Background of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was confined to a facility owned and operated by the state. While there, he sought medical care due to mental health issues, including depression and suicidal ideation. He was examined and released. He subsequently attempted to end his life by suicide. He survived and filed a lawsuit against the defendants, and employees of the facility, alleging they violated his constitutional rights by failing to provide him with adequate medical care. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the case was referred to a magistrate. The magistrate filed a report and recommendation that the court grant the motion.

When Medical Malpractice Becomes a Constitutional Violation

The court declined to adopt the magistrate’s reasoning and dismiss the plaintiff’s claims. The court explained that there are both subjective and subjective requirements to succeed on constitutional claims arising out of mental health concerns. First, the danger presented by the defendant’s alleged deliberate indifference must be adequately serious from an objective perspective. Second, the defendant must have acted with deliberate indifference to that need. In other words, they must have subjectively failed to address the danger.

In the subject case, the court found that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the objective portion of the plaintiff’s claim could be satisfied. In other words, whether the plaintiff’s propensity to self-harm or attempt suicide constituted a sufficiently serious mental health need.

Further, the court explained that upon viewing the facts in a light that is most favorable to the plaintiff as the non-moving party, a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the subjective prong as well. In other words, whether the defendants were aware of and disregarded the excessive risks to the plaintiff’s mental health and safety. Based on the foregoing, the court declined to grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Establishing Liability for Medical Malpractice

Published on: May 8, 2022 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Doctors will often admit people who have undergone surgery to rehabilitation facilities prior to releasing them home. Rehabilitation centers are intended to prevent people from sustaining injuries while they recover. Unfortunately, some people staying in such facilities suffer significant harm. Simply because a person suffers injuries while in a rehabilitation center does not mean that they can recover compensation via a medical malpractice claim, though, as shown in a recent New York ruling in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s case. If you or a loved one were hurt while staying in a rehabilitation center, it is advisable to talk to a Rochester medical malpractice attorney about your rights.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent was admitted to the defendant’s rehabilitation center following a surgery. During her admission, she fell. She subsequently developed septic shock and gangrene. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death claims. The defendant moved for summary judgment.

Establishing Liability for Medical Malpractice

The appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling dismissing the plaintiff’s case. In doing so, it explained that in order to establish a doctor’s liability for medical malpractice, a plaintiff must prove that the doctor departed from the standards of practice accepted in the community and that such a departure proximately caused the plaintiff to suffer harm. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses the Enforceability of Forum Selection Clauses in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: April 4, 2022 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Generally, a party pursuing medical malpractice claims in New York has the right to decide where to file their lawsuit, and the courts will generally defer to their choice of venue. There are exceptions, however, such as when the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract that dictates where any disputes will be heard. In a ruling recently issued in a medical malpractice and wrongful death case, a New York court examined the enforceability of forum selection clauses. If you lost a loved one due to incompetent medical care, it is wise to speak to a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer to determine your potential causes of action.

Procedural Background of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a wrongful death and medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that the negligent care rendered by the defendant caused his father’s death. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit in Bronx County, where he lived. The defendant moved to change the venue to Westchester County based on an admission agreement reportedly signed by the decedent’s wife when the decedent entered the defendant’s facility. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Enforceability of Forum Selection Clauses

The appellate court ultimately reversed the trial court ruling. The court explained that parties to a contract have the right to choose what forum will hear any disputes that may arise over the performance or interpretation of the contract. Forum selection clauses are prima facie valid and will be enforced unless they are shown to be unreasonable. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Attempt to Act as His Own Expert in a Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: April 3, 2022 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

It is well-established under New York law that parties seeking compensation for medical malpractice must submit expert testimony to support their claims. While a person does not necessarily have to practice in the same specialty as the defendant to act as an expert, they must nonetheless be qualified, and if they are not, they may be precluded from testifying. In a recent New York medical malpractice case in which the plaintiff attempted to act as his own expert, the court examined expert qualifications. If you were harmed by improper treatment of a medical condition, it is in your best interest to contact a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer regarding what evidence you need to produce to recover compensation.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit alleging medical malpractice claims against his former psychiatrist. The court set forth a discovery plan and scheduling order that established deadlines for the service of expert disclosures. The plaintiff sought to revise the order to allow him to serve an additional expert disclosure, which he wrote himself. The defendant opposed the plaintiff’s request. The court ultimately denied the plaintiff’s request, finding that he was not qualified to opine as an expert and could not use his own opinions to support his medical malpractice claims.

Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Cases

The court explained that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony in federal cases. In part, Rule 702 dictates that experts must be qualified via education, training, skill, or experience. Additionally, they may only testify if their specialized knowledge will assist the fact-finder in understanding an issue of fact, their testimony is based on adequate facts or data, and they have employed reliable methods and principles. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Explains Elements of a Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: March 5, 2022 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

People suffering from drug addiction will often seek treatment at a healthcare facility. Typically, doctors oversee the care of patients in drug treatment facilities; as such, if a patient dies while going through the detoxication process, their surviving family members may pursue medical malpractice claims against the doctor in charge of the facility. Merely because a doctor works at a drug treatment facility does not mean that they have a doctor-patient relationship with everyone in the facility, however. This was demonstrated in a recent New York medical malpractice case in which the court found no such relationship existed and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. If you or a loved one sustained harm in the context of medical care, it is smart to meet with a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer about your options.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the decedent was undergoing treatment at a residential substance abuse facility in New York. The defendant was the attending doctor at the facility; however, he did not have any interaction with the decedent or communicate with her, and she was not his patient. Tragically, the decedent died due to complications from withdrawal. Her family subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging he negligently performed his duties, thereby causing the decedent harm. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and the court granted his motion, after which the plaintiff appealed.

Elements of a Medical Malpractice Case

The salient issue on appeal was whether the decedent and the defendant had a doctor-patient relationship. The court noted that such a relationship is typically a requirement for recovery in New York medical malpractice actions. While the defendant offered ample evidence that no such relationship existed, the plaintiff failed to offer a rebuttal. He did argue, however, that even if the defendant had no personal contact with the decedent, the defendant should be held liable for failing to properly oversee the medical and non-medical staff of the facility and the medical services they provided. Continue Reading ›