Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog
Surgical malpractice cases often hinge on whether physicians took appropriate steps before entering the operating room, including reviewing medical history and confirming key anatomical facts. When critical preoperative measures are overlooked, even routine procedures can result in avoidable harm and litigation. A recent New York ruling illustrates how failures in preoperative evaluation and disputed expert opinions can prevent dismissal of malpractice claims. If you believe a surgical error may have injured you, you should consider speaking with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to understand your rights and potential legal remedies.
History of the Case
Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic surgical procedure intended to remove the gallbladder, during which the defendant physician was unable to locate the organ.
It is alleged that subsequent imaging studies revealed that the plaintiff did not have a gallbladder, raising questions about whether appropriate preoperative diagnostic measures had been performed before the surgery.
Reportedly, the plaintiff commenced an action asserting medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, claiming that the defendant failed to conduct adequate imaging studies that would have identified the absence of the gallbladder and prevented the unnecessary procedure.
It is reported that the defendant moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the complaint, arguing that the care provided conformed to accepted medical standards and that the plaintiff had been adequately informed of the risks associated with the procedure.
Allegedly, the trial court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed, challenging the determination that triable issues of fact existed.
Evidence Sufficient to Sustain Medical Malpractice Claims
On appeal, the court reviewed whether the defendant had established entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating either that there was no departure from accepted medical practice or that any alleged departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s injuries. The court reiterated that a defendant may satisfy this burden through competent expert testimony grounded in the medical record.
The defendant met this initial burden by submitting an expert affirmation opining that the treatment rendered was consistent with accepted standards of care and did not cause injury. This shifted the burden to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact.
In opposition, the plaintiff submitted an expert affirmation that directly challenged the adequacy of the defendant’s preoperative evaluation. The plaintiff’s expert opined that the defendant departed from accepted medical practice by failing to review the plaintiff’s medical records and by not performing appropriate imaging studies, such as a CT scan or MRI, that would have confirmed the presence or absence of the gallbladder before surgery. According to the expert, this failure led to an unnecessary surgical procedure and resulting harm.
The court emphasized that summary judgment is not appropriate where conflicting expert opinions create questions of fact requiring resolution by a jury. Because the plaintiff’s expert provided a detailed and non-speculative opinion linking the alleged departure to the claimed injuries, the court found that a triable issue of fact existed. As a result, the denial of summary judgment on the malpractice claim was affirmed.
The court also addressed the separate claim for lack of informed consent, which requires proof that the physician failed to disclose reasonably foreseeable risks and alternatives, that a reasonable patient would have declined the procedure if properly informed, and that the lack of informed consent caused the injury. While the defendant presented evidence, including a signed consent form, indicating that the plaintiff had been informed of the procedure’s risks, the court noted that a signed form alone is not dispositive.
The plaintiff’s expert raised issues as to whether the disclosures were adequate under the circumstances, particularly in light of the alleged failure to confirm the necessity of the procedure. These competing expert opinions created factual disputes that precluded summary judgment on the informed consent claim as well.
Accordingly, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision, allowing both the malpractice and informed consent claims to proceed.
Consult with a Knowledgeable Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney
Preoperative errors and failures to properly evaluate a patient can have serious and lasting consequences. If you or a loved one were harmed by a potentially avoidable surgical error, it is smart to consult an attorney about your options. The knowledgeable Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can inform you of your rights and aid you in seeking any recoverable damages. Call 833-200-2000 or visit us online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.