Medical Malpractice

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 ›

Proving an OB-GYN’s Liability in a New York Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: February 21, 2022 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Thorough and attentive care is vital during pregnancy. Unfortunately, oversights made by careless OB-GYNs are common and often lead to adverse consequences for both expectant mothers and their unborn children. Families harmed by medical negligence can pursue claims against the parties responsible for their losses, but providers will often try to evade liability, and the matter will ultimately become a battle of the experts. Recently, a New York court explained the burden of proof imposed on each party in an OB-GYN malpractice case in which it ultimately determined the plaintiff set forth sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. If you or your child were harmed by incompetent care during your pregnancy, you have the right to pursue damages, and you should contact a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is reported that the plaintiff was referred to the defendant for care during her pregnancy due to the fact that she was of advanced maternal age and suffered from chronic hypertension and was therefore deemed to be high risk. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to control her blood pressure during her pregnancy despite knowing her pre-existing conditions.

Allegedly, the defendant also neglected to admit the plaintiff to the hospital when she showed signs of pre-eclampsia and pregnancy-induced hypertension, which ultimately resulted in a premature birth and harm to her child. As such, she filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. The defendant moved for dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims through summary judgment, but the court denied her motion. She then appealed. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Analyzes Demonstrating Medical Malpractice in the Context of Reproductive Endocrinology

Published on: February 14, 2022 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Reproductive endocrinology is a complicated facet of medicine, and it is not uncommon for doctors practicing in this field to make oversights and errors. Even if the evidence clearly establishes missteps, though, they may argue that they did not commit malpractice or cause their patients to suffer any actual harm. This was shown in a recent opinion issued by a court in a reproductive endocrinologist malpractice case in which the court ultimately rejected the defendant’s request for dismissal via summary judgment. If you suffered losses due to medical errors, you may be owed compensation, and you should meet with a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is alleged that the plaintiffs sought fertility treatments from the defendant fertility institute. Two issues arose during their four-year course of care that caused them to pursue medical malpractice claims against the defendant. First, one of their embryos died prior to transfer, and a specimen deemed a special consideration embryo was transferred instead of a healthy embryo. The defendant argued that its actions did not constitute medical malpractice and that, in any event, the plaintiff did not suffer harm and moved for summary judgment.

Demonstrating Medical Malpractice in the Context of Reproductive Endocrinology

After reviewing the evidence, the court denied the defendant’s motion to the extent it related to the transfer of the embryos but granted it as to the allegations on which the plaintiff’s expert did not opine. In medical malpractice cases filed in New York, a plaintiff must prove the standard of care in the location where the treatment occurred, a breach of the standard of care on behalf of the defendant, and injuries proximately caused by the violation of the standard of care. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Sufficiency of Expert Opinions in Medical Malpractice Cases

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

Medical malpractice cases are very fact-specific, and demonstrating liability requires an intricate understanding of the law and applicable medical standards. As such, even if it seems that a doctor clearly caused a patient to suffer harm, the patient must produce competent expert evidence to support their claims, otherwise, they may be dismissed. This was demonstrated recently in a ruling set forth by a New York court in a gynecological malpractice case, in which the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims on the grounds that her expert opinion was insufficient. If you were harmed by a routine gynecological procedure, it is smart to speak to a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer to determine your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Allegedly, the defendant performed a myomectomy on the plaintiff to remove uterine fibroids. During the surgery, the plaintiff suffered a second-degree burn due to an electrocautery device. She subsequently filed a medical malpractice complaint against the defendant, alleging the defendant’s negligence caused her harm. The defendant requested dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims via a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Sufficiency of Expert Opinions in Medical Malpractice Cases

The salient issue on appeal was whether the plaintiff’s expert report was adequate to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The appellate court ultimately determined that it was not and affirmed the trial court ruling. The court explained the well-established rule that if a defendant seeks dismissal through a motion for summary judgment, they bear the burden of establishing the lack of a departure from the accepted and good practice of medicine or that the plaintiff did not suffer harm due to any alleged departure. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Federal Jurisdiction Over State Medical Malpractice Claims

Published on: January 24, 2022 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

It is not uncommon for people housed in federal facilities to undergo medical treatment for chronic and acute conditions. Unfortunately, the care they receive often falls below the acceptable standard, and rather than helping them, it harms them instead. In such instances, they have the right to pursue medical malpractice claims against the parties responsible for their harm. While medical malpractice claims are typically brought in state court, they may be filed in federal court if the plaintiff is also asserting claims that arise out of violations of federal statutes.

While federal courts have the right to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims in some circumstances, the plaintiff must show that such jurisdiction is proper, as demonstrated in a recent ruling issued in a New York medical malpractice case. If you were injured due to the carelessness of a doctor, it is advisable to meet with a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer to discuss whether you may be able to recover compensation.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Allegedly, when the plaintiff was detained in a federal facility, he sought medical care for an unspecified ailment. He was prescribed a painkiller that he stated caused him to suffer an upset stomach and other symptoms. The doctor nonetheless continued to prescribe him the medication, however. The plaintiff subsequently suffered a gastrointestinal bleed and lost consciousness on three occasions. During one episode, he had to undergo emergency surgery, after which he suffered from vision and mobility issues, migraine headaches, hypertension, and dementia. Continue Reading ›