Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog

People harmed by reckless health care providers have the right to seek compensation for their losses. They must do so in a timely manner, however, or their claims may be barred by the statute of limitations. While the statutory period may be tolled in some situations, a plaintiff bears the burden of proving such tolling is proper. If they cannot, their claims may be dismissed, as shown in a recent ruling issued in a New York medical malpractice case. If you were hurt due to negligently rendered medical care, you might be owed damages, and you should confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible to avoid waiving your right to recover compensation.

The Plaintiff’s Claims

Allegedly, in 2013, the plaintiff suffered injuries in a fall at a restaurant. She was then transported by ambulance to the defendant hospital, where she was treated by the defendant nurse and other parties. She presumably suffered harm due to the care she received from the defendant’s employees, as in 2015, she filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants. She ultimately discontinued her claims via stipulation with a reservation of her rights under CPLR 205(a).

It is reported that in 2017, she then commenced a lawsuit against the defendants, apparently pursuant to the six month extension of the statute of limitations under CPLR 205(a). The defendants moved to dismiss the claims against them as time barred. The court ultimately granted the defendant’s motion. Continue reading

It is an unfortunate reality that a patient can visit a cardiologist, receive a clean bill of health, and subsequently suffer a fatal heart attack a few days later. In such instances, the inclination is most likely to believe that the cardiologist negligently performed its duties, and therefore should be liable for malpractice. As demonstrated in a recent New York ruling issued in a cardiology malpractice matter, however, that is not always the case. If you or your loved one sustained losses due to negligent treatment of a heart issue, you should speak to a  Syracuse cardiology malpractice lawyer regarding your potential claims.

The Decedent’s Care

Reportedly, the decedent presented to the hospital with complaints of chest pain in July 2012. He underwent a heart catheterization that showed he suffered from a 75% narrowing of a coronary artery, which he was advised could be treated with medication. A week later, he visited the defendant’s cardiologist for a second opinion. The defendant recommended that the decedent continue to treat his heart issues with medication instead of an angioplasty.

It is alleged that in October 2012, the decedent underwent a stress test that was interpreted by a second cardiologist named as a defendant, who determined the decedent did not require emergent care. One month later, however, the decedent suffered a fatal heart attack. The plaintiff, his wife,  commenced a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants, alleging they failed to properly diagnose and treat a blockage in the decedent’s heart, The defendants ultimately moved for summary judgment, and the court granted their motion. The plaintiff appealed. Continue reading

Typically, parties in a medical malpractice case will settle their disputes prior to going to trial. If a matter is tried, however, issues of liability and damages will likely be assessed by a jury rather than a judge. While juries are tasked with assessing the evidence presented and making a determination based on that evidence, they do not always issue verdicts in accordance with the evidence. Fortunately, though, the law allows parties to ask the courts to set aside verdicts in medical malpractice matters in which they believe the jury’s verdict is improper. The grounds for vacating a medical malpractice verdict were the topic of a recent New York ruling issued in an allergist malpractice case. If you suffered harm due to the negligence of your allergy doctor, it is smart to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to assess your options for seeking compensation.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the decedent contacted the defendant allergist regarding an allergic reaction. The defendant concluded the decedent’s reaction was caused by a blood pressure medication that he had been taking for the last three years and advised him to stop taking the medication. The defendant saw the decedent on two additional occasions and again confirmed he was no longer taking the drug that caused the reaction.

Allegedly, the defendant failed to confer with the decedent’s primary care physician to inform him the decedent should no longer be taking the medication. The decedent collapsed and died a few weeks later. The cause of death was determined to be anaphylactic shock caused by the drug pressure medication. The decedent’s estate filed a medical malpractice case against the defendant. The cause proceeded to trial, and the jury found in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant then filed a motion to set aside the verdict. Continue reading

Medical malpractice trials can be costly and emotionally exhausting, and litigants run the risk that the judge or jury determining liability will rule against them regardless of how persuasive their evidence is. Thus, in many cases, it is prudent for a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case to settle their claims prior to trial. Settling a case is not always as straightforward as merely accepting a defendant’s offer, though, as demonstrated in a recent New York ruling. If you were injured by inadequate medical care, it is smart to speak to Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer regarding your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the decedent went to an urgent care facility funded by the federal government, with complaints of shortness of breath and chest pain lasting a week. He underwent an EKG which was reviewed by the attending physician’s assistant, who assessed it as “OK” but noted a “few PVCs.” She diagnosed the decedent with gastroesophageal reflux disease and sent him home. The following morning, the decedent was found deceased. An autopsy revealed the cause of his death to be a cardiac arrhythmia which was caused by arteriosclerotic heart disease.

Allegedly, the plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the defendant pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (the Act). The plaintiff’s expert subsequently opined that if the physician’s assistant had complied with the standard of care, the decedent’s condition would have been properly treated, and he would still be alive. The parties proceeded to mediation and were able to reach a settlement agreement. The plaintiff then filed a motion for approval of the settlement. Continue reading