Attorneys Jeff D. DeFrancisco and Charles L. Falgiatano
Our Results Speak for ThemselvesWe fight for the rights of clients who have sustained serious injuries or suffered harmful accidents. Our goal is to help each client achieve the best possible outcome.Schedule Your FREE Consultation Today
$13,000,000Verdict for a personal injury case.Schedule Your FREE Consultation Today
$10,500,000Verdict for failure to diagnose cancer.Schedule Your FREE Consultation Today
$3,500,000Settlement for medical malpractice against an ob/gyn for birth injury.Schedule Your FREE Consultation Today
Justia Lawyer Rating
Published on:

In medical malpractice matters, the evidentiary burden shifts between the parties. Specifically, the plaintiff must allege with particularity the manner in which the defendant departed from the standard of care, after which the burden is on the defendant to set forth an expert affidavit refuting each of the plaintiff’s allegations. The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff, who must provide an expert affirmation addressing each of the defendant’s contentions. If the plaintiff’s expert does not opine on each of the defendant’s expert’s contentions, though, it is likely the plaintiff’s claim will be dismissed, as shown in a recent New York ruling issued in an orthopedic malpractice case. If you were injured by a negligent orthopedist, you should meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible to evaluate your options.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent knee surgery in 1999 that was performed by a doctor other than the defendant. The procedure required screws and other hardware to be placed in the plaintiff’s knee.  Following the surgery, he had progressively worsening knee pain, which he reported to the defendant. The plaintiff required multiple subsequent procedures to remove the hardware in his knee, which were performed by the defendant.

Allegedly, the plaintiff then underwent a total knee replacement, during which the defendant noted that a screw from an earlier surgery was lodged in a bone and was inaccessible, and therefore, could not be removed. The screw ultimately became infected, and the plaintiff had to undergo numerous additional surgeries to address the infection. He then filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging the failure to remove the screw constituted negligence. The defendant moved for summary judgment. Continue reading

Published on:

While most medical malpractice cases arise out of the failure to provide patients with treatment that complies with the applicable standard, some allege that the defendant violated the duties owed to the plaintiff by failing to adequately explain the risks associated with a treatment prior to prescribing it to the plaintiff. As with other cases arising out of medical negligence, a plaintiff alleging harm due to lack of informed consent must set forth evidence in the form of an expert report that demonstrates that the defendant should be held accountable for the harm the plaintiff suffered. Plaintiffs that fail to meet this burden may have their claims dismissed, as demonstrated in a recent dermatology malpractice case in which a New York court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims due to insufficient evidence of the defendant’s liability. If you suffered harm due to a careless dermatologist, you should confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your possible claims.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is reported that the plaintiff sought treatment from the defendant for male pattern baldness. He was prescribed and used a topical ointment, after which he subsequently developed post-finasteride syndrome, which consists of numerous irreversible sexual, physical, neurological, and mental health issues. He then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that the defendant failed to obtain the plaintiff’s informed consent prior to prescribing the ointment. After discovery was completed, the defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the trial court ruling was affirmed.

Expert Reports in Lack of Informed Consent Claims

In a case arising out of the alleged lack of informed consent, a defendant moving for summary judgment must establish, prima facie, that it did not depart from the accepted and good practice of medicine in prescribing a treatment. In the subject case, the appellate court noted that the defendant’s expert explained that the information the defendant provided to the plaintiff prior to prescribing the ointment regarding the potential side effects, including post-finasteride syndrome, went above and beyond the applicable standard of care. Continue reading

Published on:

Under New York law, a plaintiff alleging harm due to medical negligence must prove that the treating provider deviated from the standard of care that is accepted in the relevant community. Even if a plaintiff meets this burden, he or she may be denied the right to recover damages, however, unless it is also established that the breach of the duty owed caused the plaintiff to suffer quantifiable harm. The consequence of the failure to demonstrate causation was the topic of a recent opinion issued by a New York court, in a matter in which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s malpractice claims against a hospital. If you were harmed by a careless physician, you might be owed compensation, and it is smart to speak to a skillful Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer about your options.

The Decedent’s Harm

It is reported that the decedent was admitted to the defendant hospital with complaints of dizziness and shortness of breath. During his admission, he fell while standing to answer a telephone and fractured his cervical spine. He underwent surgery to repair the fracture but suffered complications and had to be placed on a ventilator. He was taken off of life support and died a short time later.

The plaintiffs, representatives of the decedent’s estate, filed medical malpractice claims against the defendant, alleging it failed to determine that the decedent was at an increased risk for falls and to take appropriate measures to prevent him from falling. The defendant moved for dismissal via summary judgment, and the court granted its motion. The plaintiff then appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

Under New York law, property owners have a duty to maintain their premises so that they are safe for all legal entrants. When property owners fail to uphold this obligation, it often leads to dangerous conditions, and people hurt in accidents caused by such hazards may be able to recover damages via premises liability lawsuits. Recently, a New York court issued an opinion discussing what a plaintiff must prove to establish that a property owner should be held liable for harm suffered in a slip and fall accident caused by a known hazard. If you were hurt in a fall on someone else’s property, you should speak to a trusted Syracuse slip and fall accident attorney to determine what claims you may be able to pursue.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff was an adult camper at a camp owned by the defendants. The camp, which was for developmentally disabled adults, had a path that ran behind the dining hall. When the plaintiff was walking on the path one evening, he slipped and fell down an embankment and sustained injuries. The path was bordered by a strip of grass, which was wet from evening dew at the time of the fall, and did not have a railing.

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s mother filed a lawsuit against the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff, alleging negligence claims. The plaintiff could not offer testimony as to the circumstances that led to the fall due to his disabilities. Thus, the defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff could not establish how the fall occurred. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

Car accidents are a common occurrence in Syracuse, and while they happen with regularity, that does not mean they are not preventable. Rather, most collisions are brought about by the careless driving of one or more people involved in the crash. While typically, issues of negligence must be decided by a jury, in cases in which liability is clear, plaintiffs may be granted judgment as a matter of law. In a recent opinion, a New York court discussed the standard for granting summary judgment in a car accident case in which it ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff. If you were injured in an accident, you should confer with a Syracuse car accident attorney regarding your potential claims.

The Subject Collision

It is reported that the plaintiff suffered substantial injuries in an accident that occurred when the car she was driving was struck by a car driven by the defendant. The crash happened at an intersection that was governed by a traffic light. The plaintiff proceeded through the intersection as the light was in her favor when she was hit by the defendant, who ran the red light. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, seeking compensation for her damages. After discovery closed, she moved for summary judgment, but the court denied her motion. She then appealed.

Proving Negligence as a Matter of Law in a Car Crash Case

On appeal, the court reversed the trial court ruling. The court explained that if a plaintiff in a case alleging negligence moves for summary judgment, he or she must then prove, prima facie, that the defendant violated a duty owed to the plaintiff and that the breach proximately caused the plaintiff to suffer injuries. Further, the court noted that a plaintiff does not have to demonstrate that he or she was not comparatively negligent in order for the court to grant summary judgment. Continue reading

Published on:

Usually, when someone is hurt at work, they are limited to the benefits available to them under the applicable workers’ compensation laws. Occasionally, however, the facts are such that a separate case, such as a Syracuse automobile accident lawsuit, might be possible, as well.

For example, if someone is hurt in a car accident while on the job, the injured individual might be able to seek compensation from a negligent motorist who caused the crash. It should be noted that the injured person might have to repay some of the money that he or she received in workers’ compensation benefits.

Facts of the Case

In a case appealed from the Supreme Court of Kings County, the plaintiff was a police officer who was involved in a traffic accident which he alleged was caused by the defendant motorist. At the time of the crash, the plaintiff was responding to another officer’s request for assistance in what the plaintiff believed was an emergency situation. The plaintiff’s lights, sirens, and rumbler were activated at the time of the collision, which occurred when the defendant failed to pull over as the plaintiff’s cruiser approached as required under the law and, instead, turned left and drove directly into the police vehicle.

Continue reading

Published on:

Syracuse car accident cases often come down to the question of which party (or, sometimes, which eyewitness) to believe. If one party says he was rear-ended while stopped at a traffic light and this testimony is unopposed, he or she may be granted partial summary judgment; in such a situation, a trial will only be necessary if the parties disagree on the issue of damages.

However, if the opposing party or another witness claims that the accident happened when one party abruptly darted in front of the other and stopped unnecessarily, the case will probably proceed toward a jury trial on the question of fault. After all, one of the main duties of a jury member is to resolve factual inconsistencies by deciding who to believe when the parties disagree about what happened.

Facts of the Case

In a case appealed from the Supreme Court of Bronx County, the plaintiff was a man who alleged that he was injured as a result of the negligence of the defendant bus driver. He also asserted a claim against the bus driver’s employer, most likely asserting a claim of vicarious liability (although the exact details of this portion of the case was not explained in the appeal). According to the plaintiff, the accident occurred when he was stopped at an intersection and rear-ended by the bus.

Continue reading

Published on:

In a New York medical malpractice case, there is a strong preference that matters be determined on their merits. This means, among other things, that such a case is rarely dismissed for failure to comply with discovery requests during the litigation process. Generally speaking, the courts prefer to use less drastic measures whenever possible.

Still, dismissal of an otherwise valid claim for failure to abide by procedural requirements is a possibility in some cases. Thus, it is important that a would-be medical negligence litigant seek the counsel of a qualified attorney who can assist with all aspects of the pre-trial, trial, and post-trial phases of the case.

The defendant’s insurance company will jump at any opportunity to have the plaintiff’s case dismissed, and an aggressive defense is to be expected. This typically includes an attempt to end the case prior to trial, either via a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment.

Continue reading

Published on:

Syracuse Medical malpractice cases tend to involve multiple parties and a myriad of legal issues. Typically, all of the patient’s claims are tried in the same trial, complicated though it may be.

Occasionally, however, either the patient or the medical provider may ask that the issues be severed and that separate trials be had. It is unusual for a trial court to grant such a motion, as bifurcated trials are by far the exception rather than the rule.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a New York County Supreme Court case was a former patient of the defendant medical doctor. After the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the doctor setting forth a claim for medical malpractice, the doctor asserted a statute of limitations defense. According to the doctor’s view of the case, the plaintiff had not brought his claim within the limitations period allowed by law, and thus his claim should be dismissed as untimely.

Continue reading

Published on:

In a Syracuse medical malpractice case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant medical provider breached the applicable standard of care. This standard must be determined on a case-by-case basis because not every doctor, nurse, or medical clinic owes a patient the same duty.

For instance, physicians in different specialties may have different duties to diagnose a particular disease in a patient. This means that a general practitioner or “family doctor” might not be expected to recognize a rare disease or illness in every situation.

It should also be noted that, even if it is determined that a particular medical provider did breach a duty of care, the inquiry does not stop there. Additionally, the plaintiff must also be able to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that this breach of care was a proximate cause of the injuries for which the patient or his or her family seeks monetary compensation.

Continue reading

Contact Information