Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog

Investigating a medical injury may require testimony beyond the patient’s chart. Information about a treating physician can become relevant when it bears on the disputed care, although discovery remains subject to legal limits. A recent New York decision removed restrictions on questioning a defendant physician about a review report and related health information. The court focused on the usefulness of the testimony and the report’s prior public disclosure, without deciding malpractice liability. If you need help identifying evidence relevant to a treatment-related injury, a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney can assess the records and testimony your case may require.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff sustained harm that prompted a medical malpractice action against the defendant physician and other defendants. During discovery, the plaintiff sought a further deposition of the defendant physician. The disputed questioning concerned a report prepared by another physician under an aging-provider policy and the defendant physician’s health information related to that report.

Reportedly, the trial court entered an order in April 2025 permitting a further deposition but prohibiting questions concerning the report or the defendant physician’s personal health condition or information. The plaintiff appealed those restrictions. The report had previously entered the public domain when the defendant physician disclosed it in a separate action. Continue Reading ›

A newborn’s first months of life should be filled with growth and milestones, not unanswered questions about a serious medical condition. Unfortunately, some birth-related injuries or acts of medical negligence are not immediately apparent, and families may spend months searching for answers before learning that a preventable error may have caused their child’s injuries. By then, parents may fear they have lost the opportunity to pursue a claim, particularly when treatment occurred at a public hospital with unique notice requirements. A recent New York decision examined whether hospital records and expert review justified treating a late notice as timely. If your child sustained injuries due to medical negligence, you should talk to a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney who can help you evaluate both the medical evidence and the deadlines that may apply to claims against public hospitals.

Factual and Procedural Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff gave birth prematurely at a public hospital in August 2015. The infant remained there until it was transferred to another hospital in September. Records described respiratory distress, episodes of apnea, a slowed heart rate, reduced oxygen levels, and red blood cell transfusions near the time of transfer. The plaintiff later maintained that excessive or contraindicated transfusions caused brain hemorrhages and congestive heart failure, with lasting conditions including cerebral palsy, blindness, seizures, and developmental delays.

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 ›