Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Discovery is a key element in medical malpractice matters, as in most instances, it is the best tool parties can use to obtain evidence to support their claims or defenses. Broadly speaking, any information that is relevant is discoverable. There is certain information that is protected from disclosure, though, such as statements made during a quality assurance or medical review meeting. Recently, a New York court explained when the quality-assurance privilege applies in a medical malpractice case in which the defendant objected to the plaintiff’s discovery requests. If you were hurt due to incompetent care that you received in a hospital, you may be owed damages, and you should talk to a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible.

The History of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent sustained brain trauma in a car accident, after which he was transported to the defendant hospital. The defendant doctors evaluated the decedent and determined he suffered a skull fracture, hemorrhaging, a subdural hematoma, and herniation of the brain. He was removed from life support and died a short time later.

Reportedly, the plaintiff filed medical malpractice claims against the defendants and submitted discovery requests seeking the medical reports, hospital records, and reports from peer review meetings. The defendants moved for a protective order on the grounds that the quality-assurance privilege protected peer review meeting minutes from disclosure. The court denied their motion, and they appealed. Continue Reading ›

A doctor accused of medical malpractice will rarely admit liability. On the contrary, many health care providers named as defendants in medical malpractice lawsuits will ask the courts to dismiss the claims against them via a motion for summary judgment. Recently, a New York court discussed each party’s burden of proof with regard to motions for summary judgment in medical malpractice cases. If you were injured by the negligence of your healthcare provider, it is prudent to consult a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to evaluate what evidence you must produce to recover damages.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was transported via ambulance to the defendant hospital. When he was in the triage area, he began to seize. The defendant doctor examined the plaintiff, who shortly thereafter suffered a heart attack. He was resuscitated and transferred to the intensive care unit, where the doctors induced hypothermia. Two days after his admission, he was examined by the defendant vascular surgeon for compartment syndrome, as his legs were blue and rigid. He ultimately underwent a bilateral amputation of his legs above the knees.

Allegedly, the plaintiff and his file instituted claims against the defendants for lack of informed consent and medical malpractice. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law. The court granted their motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

While most New York medical malpractice claims assert that the defendant health care provider negligently performed their duties, there are key distinctions between ordinary negligence and medical malpractice claims. In a recent opinion issued by a New York court, the differences between ordinary negligence and medical malpractice were explained. If you suffered harm due to the carelessness of your treatment provider, it is smart to meet with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to assess what claims you may be able to assert in pursuit of damages.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is alleged that the plaintiff, who was living in a state-owned facility, fell down a flight of stairs and injured his back. He subsequently instituted a lawsuit against the state, alleging that it had a duty to recognize his risk of falling and place him on the first floor, and its breach of that duty caused his harm. The defendant moved for dismissal via summary judgment, arguing it was entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law.

Medical Malpractice Versus Ordinary Negligence

One of the key points of contention between the parties was whether the plaintiff’s complaint asserted medical malpractice or ordinary negligence claims. Specifically, the defendant argued that it was an ordinary negligence claim, and in support of its assertion, stated that the plaintiff’s attorney deemed it ordinary negligence at a pretrial conference. The plaintiff disagreed. Continue Reading ›

Typically, disorders involving the feet are not life-threatening and do not require emergent care. Foot conditions can cause pain and difficulty walking, however, and in some instances necessitate surgical treatment. Podiatrists, like all other healthcare providers, must comply with the applicable standard of care, and if they deviate from the standard and their patients subsequently suffer harm, it may constitute grounds for pursuing medical malpractice claims against them. Recently, a New York court discussed what constitutes appropriate treatment for bunions, in a matter in which the plaintiff asserted medical malpractice claims against the defendant after he amputated her second toes. If you suffered harm due to the negligence of your podiatrist, you may be able to recover damages, and it is in your best interest to speak to a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible.

The Plaintiff’s Treatment

It is alleged that the plaintiff went to the defendant podiatrist for treatment of bunions and crossover abnormalities involving the great and second toes on both feet, which caused her discomfort and prevented her from wearing most shoes. Defendant offered numerous treatment options, including forefoot reconstruction surgery, amputation of the second toes, and bunion shaving. The plaintiff chose amputation and bunion shaving in part because the defendant represented it required significantly less recuperation time than reconstructive surgery.

Reportedly, the plaintiff underwent the procedure without complication but continued to experience discomfort. She then sought care from two other podiatrists, who advise her that amputation was not an appropriate treatment for his issues, and caused her to experience difficulty walking, She then filed a malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment but the court denied his motion. He appealed. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice cases are typically fact intensive, and plaintiffs usually must offer evidence in the form of treatment records and expert testimony to prove their allegations. Typically, medical records and other information regarding a plaintiff’s care are obtained via discovery. As such, if a defendant refuses to comply with a plaintiff’s discovery requests or otherwise engage in the discovery process, it can be detrimental to the plaintiff’s claims. In such instances, plaintiffs can petition the courts to impose sanctions on the defendants, such as barring them from offering certain defenses or evidence. The grounds for sanctioning a defendant for failing to respond to discovery requests was the topic of an opinion recently issued by a court in a New York medical malpractice case. If you suffered losses due to the carelessness of your treatment provider, you may be owed compensation, and you should confer with a  Rochester medical malpractice lawyer regarding your potential claims.

The Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff commenced a lawsuit against the defendant health care provider in 2009. The plaintiff’s complaint sought damages for personal injuries, medical malpractice, and other claims. In June 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion asking, among other things, that the court strike the defendant’s answer to the complaint, and bar the defendant from providing any evidence at trial. The basis of the plaintiff’s request was the fact that the defendant failed to comply with prior discovery orders. The court ultimately denied the motion and the plaintiff appealed.

Sanctions for Failing to Comply with Discovery Orders in a Medical Malpractice Case

Although the Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining the nature and severity of a sanction imposed under New York law, the drastic remedy of striking a pleading or even precluding evidence should not be imposed unless the failure to comply with discovery demands or orders is clearly willful. In the subject case, the appellate court agreed with the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant’s failure to comply with the subject orders arose out of willful intent. Continue Reading ›