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:

Generally, in medical malpractice cases, plaintiffs will present evidence of the harm suffered and ask the jury to issue a verdict in their favor but will not request a specific damages amount. As such, what constitutes an appropriate amount of compensation is typically within the purview of the jury. If a defendant feels that a verdict is unjust, it may move for a judgment to be modified, however. Recently, a New York court discussed what a court considers when determining whether a judgment in a medical malpractice case is excessive, in a matter in which the defendant’s negligence caused the plaintiff’s decedent’s death. If you lost a loved one because of a careless physician, it is in your best interest to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to assess your possible claims.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant gynecologist treated the plaintiff’s decedent. During the course of her care, she complained of symptoms indicating ovarian issues, but no testing was performed. She was ultimately diagnosed with ovarian cancer after it had progressed and spread to other parts of her body. She died from the disease a short time later.

Allegedly, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging his negligent failure to diagnose the decedent’s ovarian cancer caused her death. The case was tried in front of a jury who awarded over $3 million in damages to the plaintiff. The defendant moved to set aside the jury’s verdict as excessive, and the court denied the motion, after which the defendant appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

It is not uncommon for patients to suffer complications after surgical procedures, and in many instances, such complications are preventable and only arise due to the careless acts of one of the doctors involved in the surgery. The mere occurrence of an adverse event, however, does not necessarily indicate a doctor committed medical malpractice. This was demonstrated in a recent case in which the court rejected the plaintiff’s assertions that anesthesia errors caused his harm and ruled in favor of the defendant. If you sustained losses because of a careless anesthesiologist, it is prudent to confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer regarding your options for seeking damages.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is alleged that the plaintiff underwent a surgical repair of a tear of a tendon of his left elbow. The defendant administered the plaintiff anesthesia prior to the surgery. Specifically, he administered a nerve block. After the anesthesia wore off, however, the plaintiff began to feel extreme pain in his left hand, and his fingers were swollen. He was also unable to flex two of his fingers. He was subsequently diagnosed with a brachial plexus nerve injury.

Reportedly, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging his negligent performance of his professional duties caused the plaintiff’s harm. During the trial, the plaintiff asked the court to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, but the court declined. The jury ruled in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence and to argue that the court failed to instruct the jury as requested. Continue reading

Published on:

The outcome of medical malpractice cases rests squarely on how the judge and jury view the evidence presented by the parties. Thus, while a plaintiff may believe her evidence to be compelling and sufficient to obtain a verdict in her favor, the outcome of the case may indicate otherwise. While there are measures a plaintiff can take to attempt to overturn a seemingly unjust verdict, they are often unsuccessful. Recently, a New York court discussed the evaluation of evidence in a medical malpractice case in which the plaintiff filed an appeal on numerous evidentiary grounds. If you were injured by incompetent medical care, it is smart to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to discuss what evidence you will need to recover compensation.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent laparoscopic surgery at the defendant hospital to address a ruptured ectopic pregnancy. During the surgery, she suffered nerve damage, and she subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant hospital and the surgeon who performed the procedure.

Allegedly, after discovery was complete, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment, but the court denied her motion. The case went to trial, and the jury issued a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff then filed a motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, but her motion was denied. She then appealed the denial of both motions. Continue reading

Published on:

In many lawsuits that arise out of car accidents, the defendants’ liability appears to be clear. Even in cases in which it is evident that a defendant’s negligence caused a car accident, however, he or she is generally not precluded from arguing that the plaintiff is partially at fault as well. This was demonstrated in a recent New York ruling, in which an appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the defendant’s affirmative defense of comparative negligence. If you were harmed in a collision, it is smart to speak to a skillful Syracuse car accident lawyer regarding your potential claims.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff suffered injuries when his car was struck by the defendant’s car. The accident occurred at an intersection that was controlled by a traffic light. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for his injuries in which he alleged the defendant was negligent.

Allegedly, in response, the defendant set forth an answer in which he asserted the affirmative defense of comparative negligence. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the affirmative defense. The trial court denied the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

In lawsuits arising out of car accidents, plaintiffs typically have to demonstrate not only that the defendant caused the collision but also that they suffered damages as a result of the crash. In some cases, though, defendants will not dispute liability but will argue that the plaintiffs did not suffer damages as a result of the accident. The evidence needed to establish that a plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury in a car accident was the topic of a recent New York appellate opinion. If you were hurt in a collision, it is wise to confer with a knowledgeable Syracuse car accident lawyer about your possible causes of action.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was driving her car when she was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by the defendant. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, asserting a negligence claim and arguing that she suffered serious injuries as defined by New York insurance law. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the trial court to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Evidence Needed to Establish the Lack of a Serious Injury

On appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court ruling. The court explained that the defendant argued that the plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury as a result of the accident and that any injuries the plaintiff had were pre-existing and were not causally related to the accident. In support of her motion, the defendant provided a report from a medical expert who opined that the plaintiff’s harm was degenerative in nature. Continue reading

Published on:

Many state-owned and operated facilities house individuals on a short-term or long-term basis. It is not uncommon for people confined in such facilities to require medical care, and if their requests are denied or the care is incompetently rendered, it can cause serious harm. As such, people injured by negligent treatment offered in state facilities may have grounds to pursue medical malpractice claims. They must follow the proper procedure for pursuing such claims, though, as the failure to do so may result in a dismissal, as demonstrated in a recent ruling issued by a New York court. If you sustained losses because of the incompetence of a health care provider, it is wise to confer with a trusted Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your avenues for seeking compensation.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is alleged that in June 2019, the plaintiff was being transported to a facility owned and operated by the state when he was attacked by another individual. Immediately after arriving at the facility, the plaintiff requested medical care for the injuries obtained in the assault. His request was declined, however. He subsequently filed a federal lawsuit against the state, asserting numerous claims arising out of his attack and subsequent denial of medical treatment, including medical malpractice claims.

Reportedly, the plaintiff was not represented by an attorney. The state moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims on the grounds they were barred by the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. After reviewing the pleadings, the court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. Continue reading

Published on:

Many people who require medical tests or procedures use insurance to pay for the services they receive. While insurance companies often conduct reviews to determine if care is necessary, they do not provide medical care. Thus, as discussed in a recent opinion issued in a New York case, they generally cannot be held liable for medical malpractice. If you suffered harm due to negligently rendered medical care, it is in your best interest to consult a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer about your potential claims.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Allegedly, the plaintiff visited her doctor in November 2018 with complaints of pain in her right hip. She underwent physical therapy for several weeks, but her symptoms did not improve. Her doctor then referred her to an orthopedic surgeon, who ordered an MRI. The surgeon sought pre-authorization for the MRI from the defendant, the plaintiff’s insurance provider. The defendant denied the request for pre-authorization after a doctor reviewing the plaintiff’s request, and health history determined that she failed to show that the MRI was medically necessary.

Reportedly, the defendant elaborated that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that she failed to improve following a six-week regimen of rest, physical therapy, and medication, despite that she had completed the course of physical therapy and pain medication recommended by her doctor. The doctor appealed, and after several weeks the MRI was approved. The plaintiff underwent an MRI, which revealed cancer in her right hip. Her leg was amputated, and her treating doctor advised if she presented a month earlier, her leg could have been saved. She then filed a lawsuit against the defendant asserting numerous claims, including medical malpractice. The defendant moved for dismissal. Continue reading

Published on:

When catastrophic accidents cause multiple fatalities, it is not uncommon for surviving family members to seek to recover damages from the parties that caused or contributed to the accident. Simply showing that a tragedy occurred is not sufficient to establish fault, though. Instead, plaintiffs pursuing claims following deadly collisions must show that defendant owed the deceased parties a duty of care, and the breach of the duty is what lead to their deaths, as discussed in a recent New York opinion arising out of a fatal limousine crash. If you lost a loved one in a car accident, it is prudent to meet with a Syracuse personal injury attorney to discuss what you must prove to recover compensation.

The Facts of the Case

Reportedly, in October 2018, a tragic collision caused the death of twenty people. The accident occurred when the brake system of a stretch limousine failed, and the limousine crashed into the parking lot of a restaurant. The driver, seventeen passengers, and two people standing in the parking lot lost their lives. The plaintiffs, representatives of the estates of the deceased individuals, filed a lawsuit against multiple parties, including the chauffeur company that owned the limousine and the auto body shop that regularly performed repairs on it. The auto body shop moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims of negligence and grossly negligent conduct, arguing the plaintiffs could not establish it owed a duty to the decedents. Upon review, the court denied the auto body shop’s motion.

Establishing Liability for Negligence and Grossly Negligent Conduct

Pursuant to New York law, a court evaluating a defendant’s motion to dismiss must accept plaintiffs’ assertions as true and grant them every possible inference. The court’s duty is not to determine whether plaintiffs can ultimately prove their claims but instead whether they have stated a cause of action. Continue reading

Published on:

In many cases arising out of car accidents, the defendant will argue that the plaintiff was at fault for the collision and, therefore, should not be awarded damages. While comparative negligence is a valid defense and can diminish or preclude a plaintiff’s recovery of compensation, mere allegations that a plaintiff’s carelessness causes a crash is insufficient to establish fault. This was shown in a recent New York opinion issued in a case arising out of a rear-end collision. If you were hurt in an automobile accident, it is wise to consult a Syracuse personal injury attorney to evaluate what claims you may be able to pursue.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff’s car was struck in the rear by a vehicle operated by the defendant driver, who was working for the defendant company at the time of the crash. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants, alleging their negligence caused her to suffer harm. In the defendants’ answer to the complaint, they asserted an affirmative defense of comparative negligence.

Reportedly, the plaintiff filed a motion asking for summary judgment on the issue of liability and for the dismissal of the comparative negligence defense. The court dismissed the motion as premature, and the plaintiff appealed.   Continue reading

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

Contact Information