Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

New York Court Dismisses Hospital Malpractice Case Due to Insufficient Evidence

Published on: April 20, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In many instances in which a person harmed by negligent medical care pursues damages in a medical malpractice lawsuit, the defendant healthcare provider will attempt to refute liability by arguing that the person’s harm was not proximately caused by the defendant’s acts. In such cases, if the plaintiff does not produce sufficient evidence to refute the defendant’s position, the plaintiff’s case may be dismissed. This was demonstrated in a recent hospital malpractice case in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s case via summary judgment. If you or a family member suffered harm due as a result of negligent care rendered in a hospital, it is in your best interest to speak with a proficient Rochester hospital malpractice attorney regarding what you must prove to recover damages.

Factual Background

Reportedly, the plaintiff’s decedent was admitted to the defendant hospital for treatment. The decedent developed a sacral ulcer, which did not heal. Following the decedent’s death, the plaintiff instituted a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, arguing that the defendant departed from the applicable standard of care in treating the decedent’s sacral ulcer, thereby causing the decedent to suffer harm. The defendant moved to have the plaintiff’s case dismissed via summary judgment, but the trial court denied the defendant’s motion. The defendant subsequently appealed, and on appeal, the appellate court overturned the trial court ruling, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims.

Avoiding Dismissal Via Summary Judgment in a Hospital Malpractice Case

On appeal, the appellate court noted that the defendant set forth a prima facie case that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, as required to obtain a dismissal via summary judgment. Specifically, the defendant produced an affirmation from a medical expert that stated that the defendant’s treatment of the plaintiff’s decedent’s sacral ulcer comported with accepted and good practice. Further, the affirmation stated that the failure of the plaintiff’s decedent’s ulcer to heal was caused by the decedent’s pre-existing conditions, rather than any acts or omissions on behalf of the defendant.

Court Discusses Approval of Settlements in New York Birth Injury Cases

Published on: April 14, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice lawsuits arising out of birth injuries can be complicated and costly to try to verdict, and the outcomes of such cases can be unpredictable, even if the evidence weighs strongly in favor of the plaintiff. Thus, in many instances, it is prudent for a plaintiff to settle with the defendant prior to trial. Settlements in birth injury cases differ from settlements in other cases; however, in that a court must review and approve the proposed settlement, to protect the interests of the injured child. In a recent case, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York discussed the factors weighed in evaluating settlements in birth injury cases. If your child was injured at birth because of incompetent medical care, it is prudent to speak with a seasoned Rochester birth injury attorney to discuss what compensation you may be able to recover.

Factual and Procedural History

It is alleged that the plaintiff was scheduled to deliver her child at the defendant hospital. Due to difficulties encountered during the delivery, however, she was transferred to a second hospital where she underwent an emergency C-section. Her daughter nonetheless experienced brain damage which was caused by a lack of oxygen during delivery. As such, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the doctors and nurses involved in her treatment. Discovery was conducted, and some defendants were dismissed via stipulation and ultimately, the plaintiff and the remaining defendants came to a settlement agreement. The court then held a conference to determine the fairness of the settlement to the plaintiff’s child.

Approval of Settlements in Birth Injury Cases

The court noted that Local Civil Rule 83.2 governed settlements on behalf of infants. Specifically, the rule requires a proposed settlement to include an affidavit from the infant’s representative that sets forth the facts out of which the lawsuit arose, the extent and nature of the damages suffered, the proposed terms of the settlement agreement, and the manner in which the settlement will be distributed, and any other information that is pertinent. Additionally, the attorney for the plaintiff must provide an affidavit explaining his or her reasons for recommending the settlement, and describing the services he or she rendered to the plaintiff.

New York Court Discusses Establishing Proximate Cause in a Failure to Diagnosis Case

Published on: April 4, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In any New York medical malpractice case, the plaintiff must not only establish that the defendant breached the standard of care, but also that the breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s harm. Recently, in a case filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in which the plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to diagnose the plaintiff’s decedent’s lung cancer for ten months, the court discussed what constitutes sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a delayed diagnosis caused a plaintiff’s damages. If you or someone you loved suffered harm due to a delayed diagnosis, it is in your best interest to consult a dedicated Rochester medical malpractice attorney regarding what damages you may be able to recover.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s

It is alleged that the plaintiff’s decedent reported to the defendant hospital with complaints of chest pain. X-rays were taken and reviewed by the defendant physician, who noted abnormalities but took no further action. Ten months later, the defendant was admitted to the defendant hospital with complaints of weight loss, difficulty breathing, and a sore throat. Additional diagnostic tests were conducted, and the decedent was diagnosed with lung cancer. He ultimately succumbed to his illness, and the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants under the Federal Tort Claims Act, arguing the failure to diagnose the decedent resulted in harm. The defendants conceded that they owed a duty to the decedent and that they breached the duty by failing to diagnose the decedent’s lung cancer for ten months, but denied that it was the cause of plaintiff’s death. A bench trial was held, after which the court found in favor of the plaintiff.

Proving Proximate Cause in a Failure to Diagnose Case

To prove proximate causation, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s departure from the standard of care substantially contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries. In cases in which the plaintiff alleges that the defendant departed from the standard of care by delaying in diagnosing a patient may establish proximate cause by showing that the defendant diminished the patient’s chance of a better outcome, or that the defendant increased the patient’s injury.

New York Court Explains Grounds for Denying a Motion for Substitution in a Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: March 27, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

It is not uncommon for a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case to pass away prior to the resolution of the case. A plaintiff’s claims are not extinguished merely because a plaintiff dies, however. Instead, the plaintiff’s estate generally has the right to pursue claims on behalf of the plaintiff’s beneficiaries and can substitute another party as the plaintiff. It is important for interested parties to act promptly following a plaintiff’s death, however, as a delay can result in a dismissal of the claims altogether, as demonstrated in a recent hospital malpractice case. If you or a loved one sustained injuries due to negligent care in a hospital, it is wise to speak to a trusted Rochester hospital malpractice attorney regarding what claims you may be able to pursue.

Facts of the Case

Allegedly, in 2005 the plaintiff’s decedent, who had Stage IV lung cancer, was admitted to the defendant hospital after she fell out of her wheelchair and struck her head. During her admission she was administered an excessive amount of Dilaudid, which the plaintiff averred lead to the decedent’s death. In 2007, the plaintiff, who was the decedent’s husband and the administrator of her estate, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. In 2011, the case was marked disposed of due to the plaintiff’s failure to file a note of issue, and in 2013, the plaintiff died.

It is reported that in 2017, the plaintiff’s attorney advised the defendant’s attorney that the plaintiff died. The defendant then moved to dismiss the complaint due to the plaintiff’s failure to substitute a new plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s attorney filed a cross-motion to substitute the administrator of the plaintiff’s estate as the new plaintiff. The court granted the defendant’s motion and denied the plaintiff’s, after which the plaintiff appealed.

New York Court Discusses Liability of Hospitals and Residents for Surgical Errors

Published on: March 27, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In many instances, determining who may be liable for harm caused by negligent medical care may be unexpectedly complicated. For example, even if multiple physicians improperly perform a surgical procedure in a hospital, whether each physician or the hospital may be held liable depends on numerous factors. This was discussed in a recent New York ophthalmology malpractice case, in which the court determined that neither a resident that took part in a negligently performed surgery nor the hospital where it was performed could be held liable for the plaintiff’s alleged harm. If you were injured by negligent care provided by an ophthalmologist, it is in your best interest to speak with a vigilant Rochester ophthalmology malpractice attorney regarding who may be liable for your harm.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff treated at the defendant hospital in June 2013, where he underwent a surgical procedure to remove cataracts. The surgery was performed by the defendant attending physician, with the assistance of the defendant resident. The plaintiff ultimately filed a medical malpractice lawsuit, alleging the surgery was improperly performed, resulting in an occlusion of his central retinal vein. The defendant hospital and defendant resident filed motions for summary judgment, which the court granted. The plaintiff appealed.

Liability of Residents and Hospitals for Medical Errors

Under New York law, a resident who does not exercise independent medical judgment but merely assists a doctor during a procedure, cannot be held liable for any medical malpractice that occurs during the procedure. There is an exception, however, for cases in which the doctor’s guidance so drastically departed from normal practice that the resident should be held accountable for failing to intervene. In the subject case, the court noted that both the testimony of the parties and the medical records established that the defendant physician had complete control over the diagnosis of the plaintiff and the surgery, including the surgical approach. Further, the defendants demonstrated that the defendant physician did not so greatly depart from the standard of care so as to require the defendant resident to intervene.

New York Court Discusses Medical Malpractice Cases Involving Claims of Negligence and Failure to Obtain Consent

Published on: March 21, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

It is not uncommon for a plaintiff harmed by negligent medical care to name multiple defendants or set forth more than one claim of medical malpractice. For example, a plaintiff may allege a defendant is liable for providing negligent care and for failing to obtain informed consent. Simply because a plaintiff has sufficient evidence to prove one claim does not mean he or she will be able to succeed on all claims, as demonstrated in a recent New York case in which the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a motion for summary judgment on a negligence claim against a hospital, but reversed with regard to a failure to obtain informed consent claim. If you sustained damages due to inadequate care you received in a hospital, it is advisable to meet with a knowledgeable Rochester hospital malpractice attorney to discuss your potential claims.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff’s decedent visited the defendant hospital in February 2014 with multiple complaints. He ultimately died, after which his family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the defendant hospital and defendant practitioner, alleging medical malpractice and failure to obtain informed consent. The defendants moved to have the plaintiff’s case dismissed via summary judgment. The court denied the defendant’s motion, and the defendants appealed.

Sufficient Evidence to Sustain Medical Malpractice Claims

On appeal, the court explained that a defendant in a medical malpractice case must establish the lack of any material issues of fact with respect to at least one of the elements of a medical malpractice claim. Specifically, the defendant must either demonstrate that there is no factual dispute as to whether the defendant departed from the applicable standard of care, or as to whether any alleged departure was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s harm. If the defendant sets forth evidence that no factual dispute exists as to both elements, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of fact exists as to the deviation and to causation elements.

Court Discusses Physicians’ Duties In Medical Malpractice Cases in New York

Published on: March 12, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Under New York law, a plaintiff alleging medical malpractice must establish that a treating medical provider breached a duty the provider owed the plaintiff. Specifically, the plaintiff must show that the medical provider deviated from accepted medical practice. In other words, a provider cannot be held liable for medical malpractice for failing to undertake acts not required by the standard of care. This was discussed in a recent case decided by a New York appellate court, in which the plaintiff alleged a physician that treated him during an involuntary confinement committed malpractice by failing to review his criminal history. If you suffered harm due to negligent medical care, it is prudent to seek the advice of a skillful Rochester medical malpractice attorney regarding whether you may have a viable claim.

Factual Background of the Case

It is alleged that in 1983 the plaintiff was indicted for multiple crimes, including burglary and sodomizing a child. He pleaded guilty to the burglary charge and was sentenced to eight to sixteen years imprisonment. He served thirteen years in prison, and during his imprisonment was admitted to a psychiatric hospital numerous times. Following his release from prison, he was retained in a state mental health facility for six years. After his eventual release, he filed multiple claims against the State, including medical malpractice.

Reportedly, the basis of the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim was the assertion that his treatment arose out of the belief that he plead guilty to sodomy, even though he did not. He further alleged that the treatment he received based on this mistaken belief caused him to suffer anxiety and denied him certain privileges. The court entered a judgment in favor of the defendant following a trial. The plaintiff then appealed.

New York Court Discusses Standard of Care in Emergency Room Malpractice Case

Published on: March 6, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In some instances in which a person presents to the emergency room, the source of the person’s symptoms may not be easily ascertainable, or more than one medical issue may be causing the person’s complaints. Thus, it is not uncommon for a person in the emergency room to be treated for multiple conditions. In cases in which a person suffering from numerous ailments sustains harm due to the negligent treatment of one ailment, the process of establishing liability can be complicated, as shown in a recent New York appellate ruling. If you were injured by inadequate care rendered in an emergency room, it is advisable to meet with a capable Rochester emergency room malpractice attorney regarding your potential claims.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Alleged Harm

It is alleged that the plaintiff presented to the emergency room with complaints of abdominal pain. She was subsequently diagnosed with acute appendicitis, and a pelvic mass or ovarian cyst. She was admitted to the surgical department, where she underwent an appendectomy and an intraoperative gynecological consultation. The consultation revealed the plaintiff’s pelvic mass may be malignant, and she should be transferred to another hospital for treatment by an oncologist.

Reportedly, she was discharged, and a week later underwent exploratory surgery to remove her pelvic mass, during which it was determined she was suffering from ovarian torsion that required removal of her left ovary and fallopian tube. She then filed a lawsuit against the defendant emergency room physician, surgeon, and hospital, arguing that they were negligent in diagnosing her appendicitis as an acute condition, failing to obtain a gynecological consultation prior to performing the appendectomy, and failing to treat the pelvic mass at the time of the appendectomy. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which the court denied. The defendant surgeon appealed.

New York Court Discusses Medical Malpractice Claims Under the Federal Tort Claims Act

Published on: February 28, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

While all New York medical malpractice cases allege that a plaintiff suffered harm due to a medical provider’s incompetent care, the plaintiff’s burden of proof varies depending on whether the defendant provider is a private individual or entity or the United States Government. The standards for proving a government entity is liable for medical malpractice were recently discussed in a primary care malpractice case arising out of treatment at a federally funded clinic. If you suffered harm due to incompetent care administered by a primary care physician, it is prudent to speak with a seasoned Rochester medical malpractice attorney to discuss whether you have a viable claim for damages.

Factual Background

Allegedly, the plaintiff sought treatment from the defendant primary care physician, who worked at the defendant federally funded clinic, and the defendant endocrinologist, who worked at the defendant private medical center, for a variety of health issues from 2010 through 2012. During his treatment, he underwent a variety of tests, which indicated various issues but no underlying cause of his ongoing health concerns. Then, in 2015, the plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer. As such, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice claim against the defendants for failing to diagnose and treat his cancer in a timely manner. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The defendant federally funded clinic argued that the plaintiff’s expert report was too speculative and should be precluded pursuant to the federal rules of evidence. The court disagreed, denying the defendant federally funded clinic’s motion.

Medical Malpractice Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)

The FTCA states that the liability of the United States is the same as the liability imposed on a private person under the laws of the state where the harm allegedly occurred. Thus, a plaintiff pursuing a medical malpractice claim against a government entity in New York must show that the defendant departed from the accepted standard of care in the medical community where the defendant practiced, and the departure caused the plaintiff’s harm.

New York Court Discusses Standard of Care in Medical Malpractice Claims Alleging Lack of Informed Consent

Published on: February 22, 2020 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice claims do not only arise out of improperly performed procedures or a delay in diagnosis or treating an illness. Rather, a patient can seek damages from a physician if the patient is harmed by the physician’s failure to obtain the patient’s informed consent prior to providing treatment. In a recent case decided by a court in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, the standards for determining whether a practitioner deviated from the standard of care in an informed consent claim were discussed. If you sustained damages due to your doctor’s failure to advise you of the risks of a procedure or treatment, you should confer with a trusted Rochester medical malpractice attorney regarding what redress may be available for your harm.

Facts and Procedural Background of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, who was suffering from prostate cancer, sought treatment from the defendant oncologist. The defendant treated and counseled the plaintiff. The plaintiff subsequently suffered debilitating side effects from the treatment that left him permanently disabled. He filed a medical malpractice claim against the defendant oncologist and defendant hospital, alleging that the defendant oncologist deviated from the standard of care in administering the treatment and that the defendant oncologist failed to obtain the plaintiff’s informed consent prior to the treatment. Following a trial, the jury found in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff then filed a motion to have the verdict set aside as against the weight of the evidence.

Proving Deviation from the Standard of Care in Lack of Informed Consent Claims

The main issues on appeal were whether the court erred in precluding portions of the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony at trial and whether the plaintiff’s expert testimony was sufficient to establish that the defendant oncologist deviated from the standard of care. Ultimately, the court found that the evidence supported the jury’s findings in favor of the defendant and denied the plaintiff’s motion. Specifically, the court ruled that the defendant oncologist did not depart from the standard of care or fail to obtain the plaintiff’s informed consent prior to treatment.