Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Court Highlights the Need to Comply with Procedural Requirements in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: August 19, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Plaintiffs seeking damages in New York medical malpractice lawsuits are subject to a high burden of proof, and in many cases, the defendant health care providers are able to successfully argue that the plaintiff has not met his or her burden of proof and obtain a dismissal via summary judgment prior to trial. Regardless of the sufficiency of either party’s case, however, they must comply with the New York rules of civil procedure and the failure to abide by those rules can affect the outcome of the case. This was demonstrated in a recent orthopedic malpractice case in which the court denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment as untimely. If you suffered an injury or illness because of orthopedic malpractice it is imperative to meet with a skilled Rochester orthopedic malpractice attorney as soon as possible to discuss your case.

Facts of the Case and Procedural Background

It is alleged that the plaintiff underwent arthroscopic surgery on her left knee, which was performed by the defendant orthopedic surgeon. She developed an infection and eight days after her surgery and presented to the emergency room of the defendant hospital. She underwent irrigation and debridement and was referred to an infectious disease specialist, who managed the infection with antibiotics and observation. The plaintiff subsequently developed acute renal failure due to the antibiotic she was prescribed.

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant orthopedist and defendant hospital, arguing that their negligent care ultimately caused her to sustain renal failure. Per the rules of the judge assigned to the case, the deadline for either party to file a motion for summary judgment was February 14, 2017. The defendants did not file a motion for summary judgment until March 29, 2017, however, at which time they also filed a motion to extend the deadline for filing the motion. The court dismissed both motions as untimely and the defendants appealed.

New York Court Discusses Duty of Care Owed by Hospitals in Screening for Cancer

Published on: August 13, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

When people are diagnosed with cancer, they rely on hospitals and oncologists to provide appropriate care and treatment. If an oncologist advises a person that the person’s cancer is in remission, the person will generally take this to mean that they no longer have cancer. Recently, a New York appellate court addressed the issue of whether a hospital can be held liable for advising a patient that he is cancer free following treatment for prostate cancer, when the patient is suffering from colon cancer that has not yet been diagnosed. If you suffered harm due to an oncologist’s failure to appropriately diagnose or treat your cancer, you should speak with a knowledgeable Rochester oncology malpractice attorney regarding your injuries and your potential claims.

Factual Background

Allegedly, in October 2004, the plaintiff’s decedent was diagnosed with prostate cancer at the first defendant hospital. An MRI and bone scan showed that the cancer was not metastatic. He sought a second opinion, and ultimately began treating with the defendant oncologist at the second defendant hospital. In July 2005, the defendant oncologist advised the plaintiff’s decedent that he was biochemically and clinically free of any evidence of the disease. In November 2005, however, the plaintiff’s decedent visited his urologist with complaints of rectal bleeding. He tested positive for blood in his stool and was referred to a gastroenterologist. The plaintiff’s decedent was ultimately diagnosed with metastatic colon cancer. He underwent treatment, including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, but lost his battle with cancer in June 2007.

It is reported that before his death, the plaintiff’s decedent filed an oncology malpractice lawsuit against the defendant hospitals and defendant oncologist, which was converted to a wrongful death case following the plaintiff’s decedent’s death. The defendant hospitals filed motions for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the claims against them. The court granted the motions, and the plaintiff appealed.

New York Court Explains Sufficiency of Evidence to Dismiss a Plaintiff’s Surgical Malpractice Case

Published on: August 2, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In a New York surgical malpractice case, the defendant surgeon can avoid liability if he or she can prove that he or she did not depart from the standard of care, or that any departure did not cause the alleged harm. The defendant surgeon must provide clear and sufficient evidence in support of his or her defense, however, otherwise the injured party will be permitted to pursue his or her claim against the defendant surgeon. In a recent New York appellate case, the court explained what constitutes sufficient evidence to deny a defendant surgeon’s motion to dismiss a plaintiff’s claim. If you sustained harm because of a surgeon’s negligence you should meet with a zealous Rochester surgical malpractice attorney to discuss your harm and what damages you may be able to recover.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Treatment

Allegedly, in 2015 the plaintiff visited the defendant surgeon, to undergo an elective cosmetic procedure that involved transferring fat to areas of the plaintiff’s face. One of the known risks of the procedure was blindness, caused by fat entering a blood vessel and migrating to the eyes. When the plaintiff awoke from her anesthesia following the procedure, she experienced pain in her left eye and diminished vision. She was transported to an ophthalmologist, who noted there was fat in the vessels of her retina. The following day, the plaintiff visited a neuro-ophthalmologist, who diagnosed her with a loss of vision due to a central retinal artery occlusion secondary to a fat embolism.

It is reported that the plaintiff then filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that his negligence in performing the procedure caused her to suffer the permanent loss of vision in her left eye. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to properly aspirate during the fat administration. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing he was prima facie entitled to judgment in his favor as a matter of law. The court denied the defendant’s motion, and he appealed.

Court Discusses Sufficiency of Expert Affidavits in New York Medical Malpractice Claims

Published on: July 30, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In New York summary judgment motions in medical malpractice cases, the burden shifts from the plaintiff to the defendant and then back to the plaintiff with regards to whether the defendant should be held liable for medical malpractice. Generally, a defendant must produce an expert affidavit to support the argument that he or she did not deviate from the applicable standard of care and therefore did not commit medical malpractice. In a recent surgical malpractice case, a New York appellate court discussed whether a defendant may submit his or her own affidavit to meet the burden of establishing he or she should not be held liable. If you were injured by surgical malpractice it is essential to engage a proficient Rochester surgical malpractice attorney to assist you in pursuing any damages you may be owed.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Treatment

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent a bilateral reduction mammoplasty, which was performed by the defendant surgeon. She subsequently suffered serious and permanent injuries, which she alleged was caused by negligent care during and after her surgery. As such, she filed a surgical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, attaching his own affidavit in support of the contention that he was entitled to judgment in his favor as a matter of law. The trial court granted his motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Sufficiency of Expert Affidavit

To establish a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, a defendant in a surgical malpractice case must provide factual proof that he or she complied with the appropriate standard of care, in rebuttal to the plaintiff’s malpractice claims. Factual proof can consist of deposition testimony, medical records, and affidavits. A defendant can submit his or her own affidavit to meet the burden of proof, but the affidavit must be specific, detailed, and factual in nature. Further, it must address each of the specific factual allegations raised by the plaintiff in his or her bill of particulars. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses a Defendant’s Privilege from Disclosure in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: July 28, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In New York, a defendant in a medical malpractice case is protected from having to disclose certain documents by education and public health laws. There are exemptions to the general rule, however that permit a plaintiff to obtain statements pertaining to the alleged malpractice. The appellate division of the Supreme Court of New York recently addressed when the exceptions apply in a pediatric malpractice case. If your child suffered injuries because of inappropriate pediatric care, it is vital to consult a skillful Rochester pediatric malpractice attorney to discuss what compensation you may be able to recover.

Facts of the Case

Reportedly, the plaintiff’s infant son was transported from a medical center to a nearby hospital where he was placed on a ventilator. The child subsequently developed pneumothoraxes in both lungs, which ultimately caused him to suffer a severe brain injury. The plaintiff filed a pediatric malpractice lawsuit against both the medical center and the hospital. During the discovery phase of the case, the plaintiff requested that the defendant hospital produce any and all documents pertaining to the evaluation of the child’s treatment on the date of the alleged harm. The hospital objected to the request on the grounds that any responsive documents would have been created as part of the hospital’s quality assurance program, which were privileged and exempt from disclosure pursuant to New York’s Education Law and Public Health Law.

It is alleged that the plaintiff then filed a motion to compel the responsive documents, arguing that statutory exceptions to the privilege allowed her to obtain statements made throughout the quality assurance process by a doctor or other health care provider named as a defendant regarding the facts and circumstances of the treatment from which the malpractice claim arose. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion, after which the defendant hospital sought intervention from the appellate court.

Court Discusses When a Change of Venue is Appropriate in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: July 19, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In any medical malpractice case, while the plaintiff has the discretion to control which venue the case is filed in, the defendant can move for a change of venue if it feels the venue is improper. A New York trial court recently addressed the issue of when a change of venue is appropriate in a neurosurgery malpractice case. If you suffered harm due to inadequate neurosurgical care, it is critical to retain a Rochester neurosurgery malpractice attorney with the knowledge and experience needed to properly handle the procedural aspects of your claim.

Factual and Procedural Background

Reportedly, the plaintiff husband treated with the defendant physicians at the defendant hospital for an ophthalmic aneurysm. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a medical malpractice claim against the defendants in 2013, arising out of harm allegedly caused by care the plaintiff husband received from the defendants. The case was filed in Bronx County, based on the plaintiff wife’s residence. The plaintiffs move to Schenectady County in 2014. In 2019, the parties stipulated to dismiss the defendant hospital. Subsequently, the remaining defendants filed a motion for change of venue to Westchester County, arguing that the venue was no longer proper as none of the parties resided in Bronx County, and the alleged malpractice occurred in Westchester County. The court denied the motion.

Standard for Granting a Change of Venue

In New York, a defendant can seek a change of venue within a reasonable time after the lawsuit is commenced. There are three specific grounds for change of venue under the relevant statute. First, venue can be changed if the designated county is improper. Venue can also be changed if an impartial trial cannot be conducted in the relevant county, or if a change of venue is appropriate for the convenience of the material witnesses. Here, the defendants argued that a change of venue was necessary because it was not the proper county, as none of the parties lived there.

New York Court Discusses Standard for Granting Summary Judgment in Obstetric Malpractice Case

Published on: July 13, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In a New York medical malpractice case, the burden shifts from the plaintiff to the defendant and then back to the plaintiff, with regards to proving whether the defendant caused the harm alleged. In many cases, after discovery is completed, the defendant will file a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the case in its entirety on the basis that the plaintiff has insufficient evidence to support his or her claims. A New York court recently assessed whether the defendants were entitled to summary judgment, in a case in which the plaintiffs alleged the defendants committed obstetric malpractice by failing to diagnose the plaintiff child’s chromosomal disorder prior to birth. If your child was born with a condition or disorder that should have been diagnosed prior to his or her birth you should consult a skillful Rochester obstetric malpractice attorney to discuss whether you may be able to recover damages.

Factual Background of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff child was born with Cri Du Chat Syndrome (CDC). The plaintiff parents filed a lawsuit against the defendant hospital and defendant obstetrician, alleging that the defendant obstetrician committed medical malpractice by failing to discover the plaintiff child’s CDC prior to birth. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to address results of a blood test that indicated a potential chromosomal defect, failed to perform invasive genetic testing, and failed to perform sonograms after the 32^ndweek of pregnancy to rule out intrauterine growth restriction. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the case.

Standard for Granting Motion for Summary Judgment

The court noted that the defendant met the initial burden of showing their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting an expert affirmation stating that the defendant doctor did not depart from the appropriate standard of care. The court held, however, that the plaintiffs’ reply was adequate to overcome the defendants’ expert opinion.

New York Court Rules the Continuous Treatment Doctrine Does Not Apply When Care is Unrelated to the Harm Alleged

Published on: July 5, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

If a cardiologist provides negligent care that causes a person harm, the person can pursue a claim against the cardiologist for damages. As with any civil claim, there are deadlines that apply to a person pursuing a cardiology malpractice claim, and the failure to abide by the deadlines can result in a waiver of the right to recover damages, regardless of the severity of the harm sustained. In some cases, however, the statute of limitations can be tolled if the injured patient continues to treat with the cardiologist after the date of the alleged harm.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York recently discussed the tolling of the statute of limitations under the continuous treatment doctrine in a case in which it affirmed the dismissal of a cardiology malpractice claim as time barred. If you suffered harm because of negligent cardiac care, it is imperative to consult a skillful Rochester cardiology malpractice attorney as soon as possible to discuss your potential claims.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Treatment

It is reported that the plaintiff was suffering from end stage kidney disease and kidney failure and was on the list for a kidney transplant. In October 2015, he presented to the defendant medical center for a pre-transplant examination. During the examination he underwent a chest x-ray that revealed pericardial effusion. The plaintiff subsequently underwent a pericardiocentesis to drain the fluid around his heart. During the procedure, the plaintiff’s heart was punctured, and he was required to undergo an emergency sternotomy to repair his left ventricle.

Court Explains Differences Between New York Negligence and Malpractice Lawsuits Against Hospitals

Published on: June 29, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Although most medical malpractice cases allege that the defendant medical care provider’s breach of the standard of care was due to negligence, rather than an intentional act, there are key differences between an ordinary negligence claim and a medical malpractice claim. The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, recently distinguished between negligence and medical malpractice claims in a case in which the plaintiff alleged a hospital’s negligence caused her to sustain harm following a surgery. If your health was harmed by hospital malpractice it is essential to retain an experienced Rochester hospital malpractice attorney to assist you in pursuing claims against anyone responsible for your harm.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Harm

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent a surgical procedure at the defendant hospital. Following the surgery, the plaintiff experienced substantial memory loss and threatened to leave the hospital several times. Due to her symptoms and a recommendation from her psychiatrist, the plaintiff spent a portion of her stay in the hospital in a cluster room or under one-on-one supervision. The plaintiff left the hospital and was found five days later with numerous injuries.

Reportedly, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant hospital, alleging that the hospital negligently failed to provide her with appropriate supervision and care. The defendant moved to compel the plaintiff to produce a certificate of merit, arguing that her claims sounded in malpractice. The plaintiff opposed the motion and moved for leave to amend her complaint. The court granted the defendant’s motion and granted the plaintiff leave to amend, to the extent she intended to add a claim for malpractice. The plaintiff appealed.

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

Published on: June 25, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

The basis of any Rochester surgical malpractice claim is the assertion that a physician caused harm by deviating from the standard of care. Therefore, as the ordinary layperson does not have any knowledge regarding what level of care is required to comply with the standard, both parties in a medical malpractice case must submit expert opinions in support of their position. In a recent Rochester surgical malpractice case, the court analyzed what constitutes a sufficient medical expert opinion for the purposes of defeating a motion for summary judgment. If you were harmed by surgical malpractice you should consult a trusted Rochester surgical malpractice attorney regarding your alleged harm and what evidence you must produce to obtain a successful outcome.

Factual Background

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a transurethral resection of a tumor. She allegedly suffered injuries during the surgery and filed a lawsuit against the defendant physician that performed the surgery, and the defendant hospital where the surgery was performed. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted, dismissing the case. The plaintiff appealed.

What Constitutes a Sufficient Medical Expert Opinion

On appeal, the issue presented was whether the plaintiff raised a triable issue of material fact. The court noted that the defendants submitted an affidavit of a medical expert that addressed the negligence claims asserted by the plaintiff. As such, the defendants met their initial burden of establishing that they did not deviate from the appropriate standard of care, or that any deviation did not cause the harm the plaintiff allegedly suffered.