Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog

Published on: April 22, 2019

New York Court Upholds Dismissal of Malpractice Claim As Untimely

When it comes to personal injury and wrongful death litigation, time is of the essence. If a New York medical malpractice lawsuit is not filed on within the statute of limitations, it has very little chance of ever being considered upon its merits.

There may be other deadlines that require strict compliance, as well. Taking too long to seek legal redress can result in a summary dismissal of a case that might otherwise have been very winnable – and worth a substantial sum of money to a malpractice victim and his or her family – had it been timely filed.

For this reason, it is extremely important that anyone who believes he or she has been suffered harm due to medical negligence seek legal advice as soon as possible.

Published on: April 16, 2019

New York Court Denies Summary Judgment to Common Carrier in Injured Passenger’s Negligence Lawsuit

by Jeff DeFrancisco

In a Syracuse personal injury lawsuit based on a theory of negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. This means that he or she must be able to provide evidence sufficient to convince the jury, by a preponderance of the evidence, to the existence of each and every element of his or her case.

The elements of negligence include duty, breach of duty, damages, and causation.

If the plaintiff’s evidence fails as to any one of these elements, he or she cannot recover money damages against the defendant. Continue reading

Published on: April 2, 2019

Summary Judgment Partially Granted and Partially Denied in New York Woman’s Case for Injuries Caused by Neighbors’ Dogs

by Jeff DeFrancisco

Dog bites can cause serious harm, potentially triggering a Syracuse personal injury lawsuit. In most personal injury cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant owed him or her a legal duty, that this duty was breached, that the plaintiff was harmed, and that the defendant’s breach of duty was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. In a case involving a dog bite injury, however, the usual rules do not apply. Rather, under New York law, a dog’s owner will not be held to be “negligent,” even if his or her dog bites another person and causes serious personal injury.

Instead, the law of strict liability applies – but, only if the dog has either been previously adjudicated as a dangerous animal or if the victim can prove that the dog had a dangerous tendency to bite (and that the owner knew this.) If the owner is held strictly liable, he or she must pay both the human victim’s medical expenses and the veterinary costs if another animal was involved.

Facts of the Case

A recent case arising from the Supreme Court of Erie County, New York, involved an encounter between the plaintiff and her dog and two dogs owned by the defendants. According to the plaintiff, she was walking her dog when the defendants’ dog approached them. One of the defendants’ dogs only sniffed at the plaintiff’s dog, but the other dog allegedly came toward them at a full run and began biting the plaintiff’s dog. The plaintiff, in turn, lost her balance, fell over one of the dogs, and fractured her arm.

Published on: March 26, 2019

New York Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request to Vacate Judgment of Dismissal, Noting Her Two and a Half Year Delay in Seeking Relief

by Jeff DeFrancisco

In a Syracuse medical malpractice lawsuit, time is of the essence. Not only is it prudent to contact attorney as soon as you suspect that an act of medical negligence has taken place, it is imperative that all paperwork be filed in a timely fashion. This includes not only the initial complaint for damages but also other documentation that is required as the case progresses. Failure to act within the time allowed by law can result in dismissal of what might otherwise have been a successful claim for damages.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a former patient of the defendant medical providers. In 2013, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants, asserting a claim for podiatric malpractice in relation to surgical treatment that the defendants had performed upon the plaintiff. Two months later, the defendants’ attorney submitted demands for a bill of particulars to the plaintiff’s attorney. The defendants also requested authorizations permitting them to access the plaintiff’s medical records. The plaintiff’s attorney refused to provide the information and documents sought by the defendants, and, eventually, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint.

Published on: March 25, 2019

Plaintiffs in Birth Injury Case Were Not Entitled to Relief from Defense Verdict, According to New York Appellate Court

by Jeff DeFrancisco

A Syracuse medical malpractice case can have many issues and may take several years to ultimately be decided. While this can be daunting to a would-be plaintiff, this does not mean that a claim against a careless doctor or other medical professional should not be pursued. If you believe that you or a loved one has been hurt by a doctor’s mistake, the best course of action is to talk to an attorney about your case as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiffs were the parents of a minor child who allegedly suffered certain injuries as a result of the negligence of the defendant doctors and medical clinic during labor and delivery. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a defense verdict. The plaintiff made an immediate oral motion seeking a mistrial on the basis of substantial juror confusion. The trial court granted the motion. Thereafter, the defendants made a post-trial motion to reinstate the verdict. The trial court denied the motion, but the appellate court granted the motion and reinstated the verdict. The plaintiffs then made a post-trial motion to set aside the verdict in the interest of justice. The trial court denied the motion, and the plaintiffs appealed.

Published on: March 20, 2019

New York Medical Malpractice Case Involving Finger Amputation Survives Motion for Summary Judgment

by Jeff DeFrancisco

When it comes to issues in a New York medical malpractice lawsuit, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant’s deviation from the applicable standard of care was the proximate cause of his or her damages.

In many medical negligence lawsuits, one or more of the defendants may seek judgment as a matter of law via a summary judgment motion. When this happens, the burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a man who was involved in an accident in which a log fell on his hand in 2009. He was treated by the defendant doctors (employees of the defendant medical group) at the defendant hospital and released the following day. A few days later, he was seen for a checkup, in which he was checked by a physician’s assistant. About a week later, he returned to the doctor’s office and was told that his index finger “had died.” He underwent an amputation of his finger thereafter.

Published on: March 13, 2019

New York Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment in Rear-End Collision Case

by Jeff DeFrancisco

In a Rochester or Syracuse rear-end collision, there is a presumption that the person driving the automobile that ran into the back of the other was a fault in the accident. While there are some circumstances in which the defendant in such a case may be able to avoid liability, the burden is on him or her to prove that there was some reason – other than his or her negligence – for the collision.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a woman who filed suit against the defendants, the owner and the operator of a certain automobile, seeking compensation for injuries she allegedly suffered in a rear-end collision. The defendants sought summary judgment, averring that the plaintiff had not sustained a “serious injury” as that term is defined under New York Insurance Law § 5102(d) (including the categories of significant limitation of use, permanent consequential limitations of use, and 90/180 days). The plaintiff also sought summary judgment, asking the court to rule in her favor both the issue of serious injury and negligence.

The Supreme Court of Niagara County partially granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff sought review from the intermediate appellate court.

Published on: March 6, 2019

New York Woman Wins Slip and Fall Lawsuit Against Landlord

by Jeff DeFrancisco

In a New York “slip and fall” negligence case, the plaintiff must be able to prove that the defendant breached a duty of care owed to him or her, proximately causing the damages for which he or she seeks monetary compensation. Because New York is a pure comparative negligence state, it is likely that the defendant in such a case will try to place as much fault as possible on the plaintiff. Under the doctrine of pure comparative fault, the plaintiff’s own fault will not bar recovery, but it will reduce the damages that are recoverable in proportion to the plaintiff’s own negligence.

In other words, if the jury finds that the plaintiff is entitled to $50,000 in monetary damages for his or her injuries suffered in a fall but determines that he or she was 50% at fault in the accident, the plaintiff will only receive $25,000.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a woman who filed suit against the defendant landlord in the Supreme Court for Niagara County, asserting a cause of action for negligence. According to the plaintiff, she slipped and fell outside her apartment building due to ice that the defendant had failed to remove. The plaintiff’s suit seeking compensatory damages for her personal injuries proceeded to a jury trial.

Published on: February 27, 2019

In Medical Malpractice Case Arising from Pelvic Surgery, New York Appellate Court Says Summary Judgment to Defendants Was Proper

by Jeff DeFrancisco

In a New York medical malpractice lawsuit, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove four separate and distinct elements: that the defendant healthcare provider owed a certain standard of care to the plaintiff patient, that this duty was breached, that the plaintiff suffered damages, and that the defendant’s breach of the duty of care was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages.

The plaintiff must provide expert testimony as to each of these elements. In the absence of such proof, the plaintiff’s case will fail, and judgment will be entered for the defendant.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a woman who filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant medical providers, claiming that she had suffered personal injuries due to the defendants’ negligence in performing pelvic surgery. In response, the defendants submitted evidence that they alleged showed that the plaintiff’s injury was due to a known risk that could occur even with competent surgical care. The Supreme Court of New York County granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.

Published on: February 25, 2019

New York Appellate Court Says Medical Malpractice Case Should Not Have Been Dismissed, Despite Failure to Depose Doctor According to Discovery Schedule

by Jeff DeFrancisco

Filing a Syracuse medical malpractice lawsuit is a complex endeavor that requires strict compliance to a great many procedural rules. While there may be limited instances in which compliance with a particular requirement may be excused under the circumstances of a given case, this is by far the exception rather than the rule. The burden is usually on the plaintiff not only to prove his or her case but also to convince the court that an exception should be made if a deadline was missed or another procedural rule was not complied with.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was the administratrix of the estate of a woman who allegedly died due to the negligence of the defendant hospital. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit against the defendant, and the trial court entered an order setting forth the discovery obligations of the parties. Although a particular doctor’s deposition was supposed to have taken place by a certain date, this apparently did not happen. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to New York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules 3126(3). The Supreme Court for New York County entered an order granting the defendant’s motion and dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff sought review from the intermediate appellate court of New York.