Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog

Parents trust pediatric providers to protect their children, particularly during sensitive examinations. When an injury occurs, responsibility can become complicated if a student, resident, or other trainee participated in the care. New York law distinguishes between personnel who exercise independent medical judgment and those acting under a physician’s direction. As a recent New York ruling shows, that distinction may determine whether a claim against a trainee reaches trial. If negligent medical care injured your child, a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney can help investigate what happened and identify the responsible parties.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action on behalf of her son after a pediatric office visit in November 2019. She asserted that the child sustained injuries during an inappropriate rectal examination. The defendant medical student, who was in the third year of training, participated in the examination while completing a clinical rotation at the defendant pediatric practice. A defendant physician supervised the student during the care.

Reportedly, the medical student sought summary judgment in September 2023, asking the trial court to dismiss the claims against him. The court initially denied the request without prejudice because of a jurisdictional defect, allowing the student to renew it. He subsequently filed a renewed request for dismissal and relied on deposition testimony concerning his role and the physician’s supervision. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice claims involving prescription medications often turn on more than whether a healthcare provider made a questionable treatment decision. A plaintiff must also establish that the departure from accepted medical practice actually caused the patient’s injury or death. A recent federal decision applying New York law illustrates how the causation requirement can determine the outcome of a malpractice action even when the prescribing practices themselves remain disputed. If you believe negligent prescribing or medication management caused you or a loved one to suffer serious harm, you should speak with an experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your possible claims.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the decedent had a lengthy history of substance abuse and received primary care from the defendants for several years. He also had paraplegia after a prior accident and later suffered significant burns to his legs. During treatment for those burns, a medical provider prescribed hydrocodone for pain. The prescriptions continued for more than a year, even though the patient had a known history of opioid misuse, received early refills, took benzodiazepines, and produced drug-screen results showing multiple controlled substances. Family members also expressed concern that the patient was engaging in drug-seeking behavior and had resumed abusing drugs.

Reportedly, the patient was found deceased in his home in July 2021, surrounded by drug paraphernalia and evidence of recent illicit drug use. The medical examiner attributed the death to acute intoxication caused by the combined effects of several substances, including hydrocodone, alprazolam, fentanyl, and norfentanyl. The estate commenced an action asserting medical malpractice, wrongful death, and related claims against the healthcare providers and the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The defendants moved for summary judgment, maintaining that the plaintiff could not prove that any prescribed medication caused or contributed to the death.

It is alleged that the plaintiff relied on expert opinions asserting that prescribing opioids together with benzodiazepines departed from accepted medical practice and increased the risk of respiratory depression. The plaintiff’s experts also maintained that the continued opioid prescriptions contributed to the patient’s renewed addiction and eventual overdose. The defendants’ toxicology expert, however, concluded that the prescribed hydrocodone and alprazolam were present at therapeutic, nonlethal levels and that the fentanyl concentration alone fell within a fatal range. The matter came before a federal magistrate judge for a report and recommendation on the summary judgment motions. Continue Reading ›

The COVID-19 pandemic forced hospitals across New York to make difficult operational decisions while caring for unprecedented numbers of critically ill patients. Although emergency legislation temporarily protected healthcare providers from certain malpractice claims arising during that period, those protections were never intended to excuse every medical error simply because treatment occurred during the pandemic. A recent New York decision explains that healthcare providers seeking immunity must demonstrate a direct connection between the alleged negligence and the challenges created by the public health emergency. If you believe you were injured by negligent medical treatment during or after the COVID-19 pandemic, an experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorney can evaluate whether emergency immunity laws affect your right to pursue compensation.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff sought emergency treatment after experiencing symptoms consistent with a gallbladder attack. Imaging studies revealed gallstones, and the defendant surgeon recommended the removal of the gallbladder. Following the laparoscopic procedure, the plaintiff developed jaundice and worsening symptoms. Additional testing performed at another medical facility revealed that surgical clips had obstructed the common bile duct, requiring reconstructive surgery to repair the injury.

Reportedly, the plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice action alleging that the defendants negligently performed the gallbladder surgery by failing to properly identify the patient’s anatomy before placing surgical clips, causing injury to the bile duct. The plaintiffs also asserted that the defendants failed to timely recognize and diagnose the postoperative complication. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were immune from liability under New York’s Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act because the COVID-19 pandemic affected hospital operations during the plaintiff’s treatment. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice lawsuits often rise or fall based on expert testimony. When healthcare providers seek dismissal of claims before trial, plaintiffs must present detailed, well-supported expert opinions that directly address the providers’ defenses. A recent New York opinion demonstrates how courts evaluate competing expert submissions and highlights the consequences of relying on conclusory opinions that fail to engage with the opposing side’s evidence. If you lost a loved one due to negligent medical care, you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims and legal options.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action against a hospital arising out of treatment provided to the decedent during a hospitalization. The plaintiff contended that the hospital failed to provide appropriate care while transporting the decedent from the emergency department to another area of the facility and that the alleged failures contributed to serious injuries and ultimately the decedent’s death.

Reportedly, during the transfer, hospital personnel utilized an Ambu bag and monitored the decedent’s vital signs. The plaintiff later asserted that the care provided during the transfer fell below accepted medical standards and caused the decedent to experience hypoxia and other complications. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice cases frequently arise from failures to diagnose serious conditions, where even a brief delay in treatment can result in lasting harm. Courts closely examine whether a healthcare provider’s actions met accepted standards and whether expert testimony meaningfully addresses the specific allegations of negligence. A recent New York decision demonstrates how weak or conclusory expert opinions can unravel a defendant’s attempt to dismiss a case before trial. When a provider cannot fully account for critical diagnostic decisions, the claim is more likely to proceed. If you or a loved one experienced harm due to a missed or delayed diagnosis, acting quickly can make a significant difference, and you should consider speaking with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to protect your rights.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action seeking damages for injuries to the right hand, asserting that the defendant failed to properly diagnose a transected tendon in the plaintiff’s ring finger, resulting in lasting limitations in mobility.

It is alleged that the defendant treated the plaintiff but did not identify the severity of the tendon injury or recommend timely surgical intervention, which the plaintiff claims was necessary to prevent permanent impairment. Continue Reading ›