Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Court Rejects Agreement Limiting the Right to Pursue a Medical Malpractice Claim in a New York Case

Published on: March 24, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

People enter into contracts every day, including contracts promising not to sue in the event of harm. While a contract that is entered into voluntarily will typically be upheld by the court if a contract violates public policy it may be deemed unenforceable. This was illustrated in a recent case decided by a New York court, in which the court found that a contract that purported to govern a patient’s right to pursue a medical malpractice claim was void. If you were harmed by negligent medical care and wish to seek compensation from your care provider, you should meet with a capable Rochester medical malpractice attorney to discuss the facts of your case.

The Agreement Between the Parties

Allegedly, the defendant performed a laparoscopic hysterectomy on the plaintiff. During the surgery, the defendant pierced the plaintiff’s small intestine, resulting in severe and life-threatening complications. The plaintiff subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. Prior to the surgery, the parties signed a contract referred to as Agreement as to Resolution of Concerns that was intended to limit the plaintiff’s right to pursue a medical malpractice claim against the defendant. To the extent the agreement permitted the plaintiff to file a malpractice lawsuit it affected how the lawsuit was to be handled. Specifically, the agreement prohibited the plaintiff from bringing a claim that was deemed meritless or frivolous based on the determination of a certain group, and if a claim was brought, limited the plaintiff’s use of experts. Following the filing of the lawsuit, the plaintiff filed a motion to have the agreement deemed unenforceable, arguing that it was unconscionable and contravened public policy.

Violation of Public Policy

The court noted that the public policy implications of an agreement between a doctor and a patient that limited the patient’s right to pursue a malpractice claim was an issue of first impression. The court notes that while parties are free to stipulate to a waiver of rights, an agreement that is clear an unambiguous will nonetheless be found invalid if it violates public policy by conflicting with an overriding public interest. To determine whether an agreement conflicts with a public interest the court will look at multiple factors, including legislative intent.

New York Court Affirms Verdict for Defendant in a Medical Malpractice Case Following a Failure to Diagnose

Published on: March 18, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In many cases in which a plaintiff alleges he or she suffered harm due to a delayed diagnosis, whether a defendant is found liable for medical malpractice hinges on the testimony of each party’s expert witness. In most cases, a court will not disturb a jury’s verdict, unless the evidence is overwhelmingly in one party’s favor.

Recently, a court in the appellate division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, finding the evidence presented at trial was not clearly in favor of the plaintiff. If you suffered harm due to a failure to diagnose your injury or illness in a timely manner, you should consult a seasoned Rochester medical malpractice attorney regarding your options for pursuing compensation.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Care

Reportedly, the plaintiff fell, hit his head and lost consciousness on December 22, 2013. He visited his primary care doctor on December 26, 2014, and February 3, 2014, and was treated by a nurse practitioner. Then, a month and a half after his fall, the plaintiff went to the emergency department where he reported a continuing headache and double vision since his fall. He underwent diagnostic imaging which revealed a subdural hematoma. The plaintiff had surgery to remedy the hematoma. The surgery was a success, but the plaintiff suffered brain damage that was permanent.

New York Court Discusses Factors Permitting Late Notice of a Medical Malpractice Claim Against a Public Corporation

Published on: March 11, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

The statute of limitations for pursuing a medical malpractice claim in New York is two years and six months from the date of harm. In cases where the medical care provider is a public corporation, however, different notice requirements apply.

The appellate division of the Supreme Court of New York recently discussed the circumstances in which a plaintiff will be permitted to file late notice of a claim against a public corporation. If you suffered injuries or an illness because of inadequate medical care, you should speak with a proficient Rochester medical malpractice attorney to discuss the circumstances surrounding your harm and your options for pursuing compensation.

Procedural Background

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a petition for leave to file a late notice of a claim averring medical malpractice against the defendant, a public corporation. The trial court denied the petition and the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the trial court ruling was affirmed.

New York Court Finds No Error In Verdict Sheet in Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: March 4, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In a medical malpractice case, it is essential to set forth every manner in which malpractice was allegedly committed, and present evidence of the malpractice in a clear manner at trial. A plaintiff’s failure to provide sufficiently present evidence of malpractice can result in verdict sheets that do not adequately address the alleged malpractice and a verdict in favor of the defendant.

A New York appellate court recently affirmed a jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant, finding that the court did not err in adding questions to the verdict sheet regarding the alleged malpractice, due to the fact that the evidence presented only indicated malpractice in one aspect of care. If you sustained harm due to insufficient care or testing, it is important to retain a skillfulRochester medical malpractice attorney who will work diligently to help you pursue damages for your harm.

The Plaintiff’s Surgery

Reportedly, the plaintiff underwent surgical resection of his colon, which was performed by the defendant. During the surgery, the defendant performed anastomosis, which is a procedure in which a damaged portion of the colon is removed and the healthy portions are reconnected. The plaintiff subsequently developed a leak at the site of the anastomosis and suffered sepsis, peritonitis and renal failure due to the leak. He filed a medical malpractice action against the defendant. Following a trial, a jury issued a verdict in favor of the defendant, after which the plaintiff appealed.

New York Court Discusses Proof Needed to Show Deviation from Standard of Care

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

The quality of testimony provided by an expert can make or break a plaintiff’s medical malpractice case. An expert must show not only that he or she is qualified to offer an opinion regarding the alleged malpractice in the particular specialty in which the defendant practices, he or she must also offer an opinion sufficient to show the manner in which the defendant deviated from the standard of care. If an expert fails to meet these requirements, it can be fatal to a plaintiff’s case.

This was illustrated in a recent case decided by the appellate division of the Supreme Court of New York, where the court held that the plaintiff’s expert’s report was insufficient to show there was an issue of fact as to whether the defendant failed to meet the standard of care. If you suffered harm due to medical malpractice, it is in your best interest to consult a skilled Rochester medical malpractice attorney to discuss your case.

Facts Regarding the Treatment of the Decedent

Reportedly, the plaintiff decedent underwent a knee replacement surgery on July 30, 2010. The surgery was performed by the defendant surgeon at the defendant hospital. The decedent had multiple health issues, including anemia and hypertension, at the time of the surgery, but she tolerated the surgery well. Following the surgery, she was prescribed an anticoagulant to prevent the formation of deep venous thrombosis (DVT). She remained hospitalized in stable condition. On August 4, 2010, however, she died due to a pulmonary embolism caused by a DVT in her leg.

New York Court Explains Continuous Treatment Doctrine in Medical Malpractice Cases

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

New York medical malpractice lawsuits, like all civil claims, are governed by statutes of limitations. As such, if a plaintiff does not pursue his or her claim within the time limitations set forth under the law, he or she waives the right to recover. In some cases, however, the statute of limitations may be tolled by the continuous treatment doctrine, which allows the injured party additional time to pursue his or her claim.

The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, recently explained the continuous treatment doctrine, in a case in which it ruled that the plaintiff’s claim was not barred by the statute of limitations due to the application of the doctrine. If you were injured by substandard medical care, you should contact an experienced Rochester medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible to discuss your options for seeking damages.

Factual and Procedural Background

Reportedly, the plaintiff underwent hip replacement surgery at the defendant hospital on July 9, 2008. She filed a Complaint alleging medical malpractice against the defendant hospital and defendant surgeon on December 16, 2013. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the Complaint was filed more than two years and six months after the plaintiff ceased treatment with the defendants and that therefore, the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that she continued treating until November 26, 2011, which was less than two and a half years before she filed her lawsuit. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion, after which the plaintiff appealed.

New York Court Rules Sexualization of a Patient-Doctor Relationship is Medical Malpractice

Published on: February 18, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

When people think of a medical malpractice claim, they often imagine a botched surgery or misdiagnosis. Medical malpractice can encompass a wide range of a medical care provider’s behavior, however, including the sexualization of a patient-doctor relationship. Therefore, it is important to be mindful of the procedural laws regarding any claim against a medical provider for any inappropriate treatment, to avoid waiving the right to pursue damages.

This was demonstrated in a case decided by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York in which the court held that a plaintiff’s claim that a psychiatrist fraudulently induced her into a sexual relationship was a medical malpractice claim governed by the two-and-a-half year statute of limitations. If you suffered harm due to a medical provider’s inappropriate care, you should meet with a trusted Rochester medical malpractice attorney to discuss your case and develop a plan for seeking compensation.

Allegations Regarding the Plaintiff’s Treatment

Reportedly, the plaintiff began treating with the defendant psychiatrist in 1992. Eleven years after her treatment began, the defendant allegedly told the plaintiff that if she had sex with him it would improve her marriage and her mental health. He further advised the plaintiff that if she did not have sex with him, it would be detrimental to her health and marriage. The plaintiff submitted to the defendant’s request based on reliance on his statements and engaged in a sexual relationship with the defendant until 2012 when she ceased treatment. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging the defendant fraudulently induced her into a sexual relationship, which caused her to develop post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, financial harm, and caused the end of her marriage. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim as time-barred, which the court granted. The plaintiff appealed.

New York Court Discusses Spoliation of Evidence in Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: February 11, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In any case where it is alleged that inadequate treatment rendered by a medical care provider caused a person harm it is important to retain any evidence that supports the inference of medical malpractice. If a person loses or destroys evidence of the quality of the care rendered, it may not only affect the person’s case, it may result in sanctions or the case being dismissed altogether.

The appellate division of the Supreme Court of New York recently discussed the standard for taking adverse action against the plaintiff due to the loss of evidence. In doing so, the court affirmed that the plaintiff was not responsible for the loss of evidence and should not face sanctions. If you were harmed by inadequate medical care, it is crucial to keep any evidence of the treatment you received and to retain a skilled Rochester medical malpractice attorney to assist you in your pursuit of damages from the providers who caused your harm.

Facts Regarding the Evidence in Question

Reportedly, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice suit against the defendant doctor. At some point prior to commencing the subject lawsuit, the plaintiff obtained mammography films from the hospital where they were taken and gave them to another facility for continuing treatment. The plaintiff was not in possession of the films at any time after she gave them to the second facility. After the lawsuit was filed, it became evident that no one could locate the plaintiff’s mammography films. As such, the defendant filed a motion to strike the Complaint, alleging spoliation of the evidence. The trial court denied the motion, after which the defendant appealed.

New York Court Find Triable Issue of Fact in A Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: February 4, 2019 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In a medical malpractice lawsuit, both the plaintiff and defendant have burdens of proof that they must meet to win the case. If a defendant meets the burden of proof of producing evidence, that on its face shows no substandard treatment, the case may be dismissed unless the plaintiff rebuts the defendant’s evidence by showing there is a triable issue of fact.

This was illustrated in a recent New York appellate court case in which the court overturned a trial court ruling granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, where the appellate court found there was a triable issue. If you suffered harm due to insufficient care or monitoring in a hospital you, should meet with an experienced Rochester medical malpractice attorney to determine whether you may be able to seek damages from the hospital and any doctor that treated you.

Factual Allegations

Reportedly, the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital with stroke symptoms. At some point after he was admitted, he fell out of his hospital bed. The plaintiff and his wife subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant hospital and the defendant physician that treated him at the hospital. Following discovery, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The plaintiffs then appealed.

Court Defines Foreign Objects in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

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

A rare but serious example of medical malpractice is a surgeon inadvertently leaving an object inside of a patient following surgery. Under New York law, the statute of limitations for pursuing a medical malpractice claim differs when the claim involves the discovery of a foreign object within the body of the patient.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York recently addressed what constitutes a foreign body in a case where it was disputed whether the plaintiff filed his lawsuit within the statute of limitations. If you suffered injuries or illness due to a foreign object that was left inside of your body following a surgery, you should consult a knowledgeable Rochester medical malpractice attorney to discuss your case.

The Plaintiff’s Surgery

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent surgery at the defendant hospital in 1993, during which a ureteral stent was inserted. The plaintiff alleged the defendant carelessly failed to remove the stent which caused him harm. The stent was not discovered by the plaintiff until 2012, and the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against the defendant in 2013. The defendant denied that it placed the stent in the plaintiff, but it no longer had the surgical records to support the argument. Further, the defendant argued that even if it had placed the stent the plaintiff’s action should be dismissed because it was not filed within the time period set forth in the applicable statute of limitations. As such, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. The defendant subsequently appealed.