Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Hospital Residents as Named Defendants in New York Medical Malpractice Claims

Published on: October 5, 2017 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Successful surgical procedures require an entire team of medical professionals and staff. In addition to nurses and technicians, the surgeon may also rely on the assistance of a medical resident who is training to become a surgeon. Along with inexperience comes the increased likelihood that the resident might make mistakes, even under the supervision of a trained surgeon. It’s possible to seek liability against a medical resident, but New York medical malpractice law makes it difficult. In fact, here is a recent decision that considered whether the assisting resident could be held liable for alleged malpractice.The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to recover damages for medical malpractice. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff underwent a laparoscopy with a lysis of adhesions procedure and a subsequent exploratory laparotomy performed later that day. The procedure was performed by the defendant obstetrician/gynecologist, along with the assistance of a resident at the defendant hospital. In addition, another defendant acted as the anesthesiologist for the procedure. The plaintiff alleged that during the procedure, the obstetrician/gynecologist and the resident cut the uterine wall and failed to recognize and treat the resulting intra-abdominal bleeding, and the anesthesiologist allegedly administered the wrong form of pain medication for the internal bleeding. After the defendants filed for summary judgment, the trial court ruled in their favor. The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s decision on summary judgment.

On appeal, the court considered the liability of a resident. New York law, as stated in Soto v. Andaz, 8 AD 3d 470 – NY: Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. 2004, provides that a resident who assists a doctor during a medical procedure, and who does not exercise any independent medical judgment, cannot be held liable for malpractice as long as the doctor’s directions did not so greatly deviate from normal practice that the resident should be held liable for failing to intervene.

The appeals court reasoned that the evidence showed that the plaintiff’s physician controlled the surgery, directed and supervised all of the actions of the assisting resident, and oversaw the injured plaintiff’s pre- and post-operative care, and that the assisting resident committed no act that departed from accepted medical practice. Therefore, the appeals court concluded that she was under the attending physician’s direct supervision at all times and did not exercise any independent medical judgment with respect to the injured plaintiff’s care and treatment, and the physician’s directions did not so greatly deviate from normal practice that the assisting resident should be held liable for failing to intervene. The appeals court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s ruling and dismissed the claims against the resident.

Expert Witness Fails to Properly Review Medical Evidence, Sinking Plaintiff’s New York Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: October 2, 2017 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Even supposedly routine surgeries carry risks and require that doctors perform those surgeries with an established standard of care. It can be a shocking experience to learn that a loved one has suffered complications as a result of a procedure that is commonly performed in hospitals across the United States. In a recent case, a New York man sued his surgeon for medical malpractice after he suffered complications from a procedure intended to remove fluid from excessive fluid near one of his testicles.

The plaintiff went into surgery for a procedure to extract fluids that had accumulated near one of his testicles. The surgery was performed, but shortly afterwards, the plaintiff began experiencing pain in his scrotum. He later lost the function of his right testicle. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the surgeon for medical malpractice. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the testicular damage resulted from the defendant’s failure to perform certain standard tasks during the surgical procedure, and these omissions led to an injury to the plaintiff’s right testicle. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant’s summary judgment motion, and the plaintiff appealed the ruling.

The appeals court considered this case within the context of New York’s well-established medical malpractice laws. In order for the plaintiff to prevail in a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff must prove the physician departed from the standards of care for his or her practice, and there was a causal link between the negligence and the plaintiff’s injuries.

Medical Group Ordered to Release Anesthesiologist Contracts by New York Appeals Court

Published on: September 28, 2017 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice lawsuits, like all other forms of litigation, are subject to the jurisdiction’s rules of civil procedure. These rules are geared to make the litigation more efficient and predictable between the parties. The discovery process is a crucial pre-trial stage in which the parties gather evidence to prepare their cases. Medical malpractice cases often require the review of voluminous medical records and contracts to show whether a doctor, medical group, or hospital breached its standard of care.The plaintiff filed a New York anesthesia malpractice lawsuit against his anesthesiologist, the anesthesiology group, and Peconic Bay Medical Center. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to ensure the proper anesthesia prophylaxis with regard to an operation performed on him at Peconic Bay Medical Center. His complaint alleged that as a result of the malpractice, he suffered severe injuries and complications. When the alleged malpractice occurred, a nonparty to the lawsuit was the president and sole shareholder of the anesthesia practice and its director of anesthesia services. The plaintiff requested, as part of the lawsuit discovery process, all contracts related to anesthesia services among the defendants to the lawsuit. The plaintiff filed a motion to compel those discovery requests, but the trial court granted a protective order to the defendants. The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s ruling with regard to the discovery request.

New York law provides that defendants must make a full disclosure of any facts material and necessary in the prosecution of a complaint or cause of action. New York courts have interpreted this rule as one that should be interpreted broadly and requires the disclosure, when requested, of any facts that will assist preparation for trial by identifying the issues and reducing unnecessary delay.

Infant Foot Surgery Lawsuit Revived by New York Appeals Court

Published on: September 25, 2017 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Surgical procedures on infants often come with high risks. New York medical malpractice law requires doctors to disclose medical risks and perform surgeries under a legally imposed standard of care. Unfortunately, a recent lawsuit alleged that an infant child’s podiatrist failed to disclose risks to the patient’s mother related to a foot surgery, and the surgery was performed negligently.In this case, a Brooklyn-based podiatrist performed a surgical procedure on the right foot of the plaintiff, who was an infant at the time of the surgery. The surgery was performed because the podiatrist believed that the plaintiff had a rupture of the extensor hallucis longus tendon. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of the surgery, she has constant pain and limited movement of her right big toe. Moreover, the plaintiff alleged that the surgery was unnecessary, and it actually aggravated the plaintiff’s condition. The plaintiff also brought a cause of action for lack of informed consent.

Under New York law, a claim for podiatry malpractice requires proof of (i) a departure from the accepted standard of practice among podiatric specialists and (ii) sufficient proof that such a departure caused the injury to the plaintiff.

Although the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, the appeals court revived the plaintiff’s malpractice claim. The panel of judges agreed that there was an issue of fact as to whether the proper testing had been conducted prior to the operation. The appeals court reiterated that the defendants’ expert affidavit was merely conclusory and therefore did not meet the standard required to win on summary judgment. Specifically, the defendants’ expert affidavit did not address whether they failed to perform pre-operative testing on the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s complaint asserted that the defendants had failed to determine whether she had the circulation required to heal properly from the surgery.

Continuous Treatment Doctrine at Issue in New York Cancer Misdiagnosis Case

Published on: September 21, 2017 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

The statute of limitations for New York medical malpractice lawsuits is currently 30 months. Generally, the time period for filing claims starts to run when the medical error occurred, although this might change if the Governor signs Lavern’s Law. Regardless, New York law recognizes an exception to the general rule. The continuous treatment doctrine extends, or tolls, the statute of limitations when a physician’s treatment has continued uninterrupted and is associated with the patient’s initial illness or condition.A New York appeals court ruled on this issue in Lewis v. Rutkovsky. The plaintiff brought a lawsuit against her primary care physician, alleging that he failed to detect, diagnose, and treat her meningioma. As a result of the alleged malpractice, the plaintiff underwent brain surgery that left her legally blind. The plaintiff first went to see the doctor in 1999 because she was experiencing migraines and blurred vision but did not file a lawsuit until 2010. She argued that this was still proper because her doctor ignored her complaints about her symptoms during the eight-year period of continuous treatment.

The court relied on earlier precedent to guide their decision. In Wilson v. Southampton Urgent Medical Care, P.C., the plaintiff received treatment on 11 separate occasions during a three-year period. The plaintiff’s symptoms included headaches, and she was eventually diagnosed with lung cancer. Deposition testimony revealed that a brain tumor from metastasized lung cancer would cause headaches. The court allowed the claim to proceed because there was an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s continuous treatment for headaches was traceable to the lung cancer.

Hospital Denied Emergency Room Exception to Vicarious Liability Rule

Published on: September 19, 2017 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

One of the crucial threshold questions in a New York hospital negligence claim is who is responsible for the patient’s injuries. The physician who allegedly committed the malpractice would almost certainly be a defendant, but the hospital where the physician works is not always a proper defendant. In a recent case, the court examined the emergency room exception to the rule of vicarious liability as it applied to the alleged negligence of a non-employee, private attending physician.

The plaintiff arrived by ambulance to Peconic Bay Medical Center, where she was seen and evaluated by a doctor in the emergency department. Later, she was examined by the Center’s surgical consultant, a defendant to the lawsuit, who determined that she needed to undergo surgery. The plaintiff decided she wanted the surgery performed by another physician who worked at another hospital. The plaintiff was transferred after several hours to the other hospital, where she underwent numerous surgeries, which resulted in a large portion of her gastrointestinal tract being removed.

Generally, the doctrine of vicarious liability holds an employer responsible for the negligence of its employees. In the medical malpractice context, the hospital that retained the doctor on its staff can be held vicariously liable for the doctor’s medical negligence under an agency theory.

New York Court Allows Prenatal Care Case to Proceed

Published on: September 19, 2017 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Prenatal care is the health care provided while a person is pregnant. A failure to provide proper prenatal care can lead to injuries not only to the child’s parent but also to the child in their earliest stages of development. A woman brought a New York medical malpractice lawsuit, on behalf of her son, alleging that two of her doctors failed to provide proper prenatal care, resulting in her child’s cerebral palsy. The Second Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division agreed with the plaintiff that there was a triable issue concerning whether the doctors had breached their standard of care.The plaintiff sued the doctors after her son, who has cerebral palsy, was born. The plaintiff, during her pregnancy, developed a condition known as preeclampsia, which is a condition connected with hypertension and organ damage that can lead to complications during pregnancy, including harm to a fetus. Her doctors tried to treat her condition but ultimately decided to deliver the baby once the fetal heart rate started to slow down. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the doctors failed to perceive the warning signs of her condition and failed to provide the proper treatment after she went to the hospital.

Expert testimony is crucial to presenting medical malpractice claims. Both defendants and plaintiffs rely on the testimony of experts because a determination of negligence requires the examination of technical medical details.

New York Court Allows Anesthesia Error Case to Proceed

Published on: September 12, 2017 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Anesthesia, when administered with the proper care, allows patients to undergo surgery without feeling pain. Unfortunately, anesthesia errors are common and often lead to debilitating injures or death. A court recently decided a New York anesthesia error case involving the negligent application of morphine, a common form of surgical anesthesia.The plaintiff went in for gallbladder surgery; during surgery, however, he went into cardiopulmonary arrest. This resulted in a brain injury that left him on a ventilator and in a vegetative state. The plaintiff brought a malpractice claim against two doctors and alleged that his anesthesiologist failed to recognize that the plaintiff was not responding appropriately to opiate pain medication. The court’s decision came at the summary judgment phase of the lawsuit. The primary issue before the court was whether the amount of morphine administered to the plaintiff was done in a way that was negligent.

Under New York law, summary judgment is a procedural phase in which the defendant tries to persuade the judge that the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed because they lack merit. The defendant must present evidence that shows the absence of any triable issue regarding a claim. If the defendant meets this burden of proof, the plaintiff must present evidence to establish the presence of an issue of material fact. New York law provides that a summary judgment ruling in favor of the defendant is not proper in a medical malpractice claim when the parties have produced conflicting opinions by medical experts.

The defendants’ expert testimony stated that the doses of morphine administered to the plaintiff were within the accepted standard of care. Specifically, the dosage administered (9 to 13 mg) was insufficient to cause an overdose to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plaintiff contended that although 9 to 13 mg of morphine may not have been excessive for a younger patient, it was negligent to administer this amount to the plaintiff, who was at an increased risk of an abnormal reaction because of his age and obesity. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s experts stated that the plaintiff’s pupils were severely dilated during surgery and evidence of the occurrence of an opioid overdose. The court acknowledged that this evidence could show that the plaintiff’s cardiac arrest was narcotics-induced and concluded that the plaintiff presented triable issues of fact concerning his possible opioid overdose as a result of his anesthesiologist’s negligence.

New York Legislature Passes Lavern’s Law, Affecting Cancer Misdiagnosis Statute of Limitations

Published on: September 5, 2017 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

A statute of limitations is a law that limits the time period within which you may sue a person or company. The New York medical malpractice statute imposes a 30-month time limit from the date of the malpractice or from the end of continuous treatment. However, the New York legislature recently passed Lavern’s Law to, among other things, give people who receive a cancer misdiagnosis a more reasonable time period to assert a malpractice claim.

The New York legislature first considered revising the medical malpractice statute after the death of a New York woman, whose cancer was misdiagnosed on two separate occasions. The woman visited Kings County Hospital with chest pain and received an X-ray. She was sent home after a first-year resident told her it looked fine. Later, she began having difficulty breathing. Again, this was misdiagnosed with asthma symptoms. Finally, two years after the initial visit, doctors reexamined her old X-ray and noticed a small mass. By this time, the mass had developed into lung cancer and spread throughout her body. She died approximately a year later.

The woman’s lawsuit for medical malpractice was unsuccessful because the statute of limitations had expired by the time she filed suit. New York is currently one of only six states that starts the statute of limitations when the medical mistake is made, not the moment the mistake is discovered. Lavern’s Law would change this feature of the current law so that the timing for cancer misdiagnoses would begin at the moment of discovery.