Articles Posted in Medical Malpractice

New York Court Sets Forth Grounds for Overturning a Verdict in a Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: February 16, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Most plaintiffs pursuing medical malpractice claims will rely on a jury rather than a judge to decide issues of liability and damages. As juries are comprised of human beings, though, they are not immune to mistakes, and in some cases, they fail to rule in accordance with the evidence. Luckily, the law allows parties who feel that a jury ruled improperly to seek a new trial or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Obtaining such relief is not easy, however, as demonstrated in a recent opinion set forth by a New York court in a medical malpractice case. If you suffered harm due to incompetent care rendered by a physician, you have the right to pursue claims for your losses, and it is smart to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

Background of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent was hospitalized due to a pulmonary embolism. He was subsequently diagnosed with cancer and later died. The plaintiff, the executor of his estate, filed a wrongful death and medical malpractice lawsuit naming the hospital and numerous doctors as defendants. The matter progressed to trial, and after the plaintiff presented her evidence, she settled with one of the defendants. The trial concluded, after which the jury found that while the first individually named defendant departed from the standard of care, the second had not. The plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict as to the second individually named defendant. The trial court denied her request, and she appealed.

Grounds for Overturning a Verdict in a Medical Malpractice Case

On appeal, the court expounded that a court may not set aside a jury’s verdict in favor of a defendant unless it finds that the evidence weighs so heavily in favor of the plaintiff that the jury could not have reached the verdict had it fairly interpreted the evidence. If a verdict aligns with a reasonable view of the evidence, though, the defendant is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted a reasonable view. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Explains the Elements of a Lack of Informed Consent Claim

Published on: February 13, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Many medical treatments carry some degree of risk. As such, doctors must fully advise patients of the potential side effects and adverse consequences of a treatment so that the patient can make an educated decision regarding whether to proceed. If a doctor fails to do so, they may be liable for the patient’s lack of informed consent. Recently, a New York court discussed the elements of a lack of informed consent claim in a matter in which the plaintiff asserted he suffered harm following orthopedic injections. If you were hurt due to the negligence of a radiologist, you might be able to recover compensation, and it is advisable to confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to determine what evidence you have to submit to establish fault.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff treated with the defendant podiatrist and defendant radiologist for pain caused by bone spurs. Per the defendant podiatrist’s referral, the defendant radiologist administered guided steroid injections into the back of the plaintiff’s feet. As a result of the injections, the plaintiff suffered torn Achilles tendons in both feet. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendants asserting claims of medical malpractice and lack of informed consent. The defendant later filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied their motions, and they appealed.

Elements of a Lack of Informed Consent Claim

The appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling. In New York, a plaintiff alleging medical malpractice due to a lack of informed consent has to prove that the defendant failed to inform the plaintiff of the reasonably foreseeable risks of the treatment and any alternative treatments and that a reasonable practitioner would have. The plaintiff must also prove that a person of reasonable prudence that is in the same position as the plaintiff would not have undergone the treatment had they been so informed and that the lack of informed consent proximately caused the plaintiff to suffer actual harm. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Grounds for Dismissing a Medical Malpractice Case Due to Delay

Published on: February 10, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

The New York legislature is wary of people filing medical malpractice lawsuits and then delaying the resolution of their claims. As such, it drafted a statute that allows defendants to compel a plaintiff to move a case forward within 90 days, otherwise, it may be dismissed. Defendants cannot use the law to benefit from delays they caused, however, as discussed in a recent ruling delivered in an OB-GYN malpractice matter. If you suffered harm due to the negligence of your OB-GYN, it is in your best interest to contact a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to assess what claims you may be able to pursue.

The Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that in 2012, the plaintiff underwent a fertility procedure that was performed by the defendant. In April 2015, she commenced a medal malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. In September of that year, issue was joined, and the defendant served the plaintiff with a demand for a bill of particulars, a notice of deposition of the plaintiff at an agreed-upon date and time, and discovery requests.

It is reported that the plaintiff did not respond. As such, in May 2017, the defendant served the plaintiff with a 90-day demand to file a note of issue. The parties’ attorneys had several discussions regarding the scheduling of the plaintiff’s deposition and set a date and time, but the defendant ultimately canceled the deposition. The plaintiff’s attorney sent a letter to the defendant’s attorney with a proposed scheduling order stating that a note of issue would be filed by December of 2017, but the defendant’s attorney did not respond. The parties had no communication until April 2019, when the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Evaluates Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Cases with Conflicting Expert Reports

Published on: February 4, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Expert testimony is essential in New York medical malpractice cases. Specifically, the success of a plaintiff’s claims may hinge on the strength of their expert’s opinion. Similarly, defendants often rely on expert opinions in support of their assertion that they should not be deemed liable for the plaintiff’s harm. In cases in which expert opinions conflict, the courts will typically deny any motions for judgment as a matter of law. If they do not, it may be grounds for reversal, as demonstrated in a recent ruling issued in a New York hospital malpractice action. If you were injured due to negligent care in a hospital, it is smart to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer about what evidence you need to recover damages.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent visited the emergency department of the defendant hospital with complaints of swelling in her legs. The defendant doctor diagnosed her with peripheral vascular disease and discharged her. The decedent’s condition initially improved, but nine days later, she visited a second emergency department, again complaining of swelling in both legs. An ultrasound showed that she had acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in both legs.

Reportedly, shortly after the examination, she suffered a cardiac arrest and died. An autopsy later revealed DVT to be the cause of her death. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendants, asserting medical malpractice and wrongful death claims. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted their motion, after which the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Proving Medical Malpractice Caused a Person’s Death

Published on: January 18, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

If a person suddenly dies shortly after a medical procedure, their surviving family members may be inclined to think their demise was caused by incompetent medical care. Belief alone is not sufficient to establish liability for medical malpractice, however. In other words, a plaintiff must produce sound evidence showing that a defendant medical provider caused a person’s harm in order to recover damages, as discussed in a recent ruling issued by a New York court in a medical malpractice matter. If you lost a loved one due to negligent medical care, you have the right to pursue claims against their provider, and it is advisable to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to assess your potential claims.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant doctor performed a splenectomy on the decedent to address her low platelet count. During the procedure, he noticed she had a large gall stone and removed her gallbladder. Approximately five weeks after the surgery, she was admitted to the hospital with a pulmonary embolism. During her admission, she was diagnosed with an E. coli infection in her surgical wounds as well. She was discharged, and her infection eventually resolved.

Allegedly, approximately two years later, the decedent died due to natural causes. The plaintiff, the decedent’s husband, filed lack of informed consent and medical malpractice claims against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion seeking dismissal via summary judgment, and the court granted the motion. The plaintiff then appealed. Continue Reading ›

Court Discusses Res Ipsa Loquitor in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: January 16, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

In many medical malpractice cases, the plaintiff can pinpoint the precise acts that led to their harm. In some matters, though, the plaintiff will rely on the fact that the harm they suffered would not have occurred absent negligence, in support of their assertion that the defendant committed medical malpractice. This theory, known as res ipsa loquitor, is valid under New York law, as shown in a recent ruling issued in a surgery malpractice case. If you suffered harm at the hands of a surgeon, it is prudent to confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer regarding what evidence you must produce to establish liability.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital for a surgical procedure on his spine. After the surgery, the plaintiff felt pain in his left knee. A subsequent examination revealed that he tore a tendon in his quadricep. He then brought medical malpractice claims against the defendant hospital and the doctors who treated him during his admission, alleging that they negligently dropped him during the surgery, causing his knee injury. The defendants moved for summary judgment, but the court denied their motion. They then appealed.

Res Ipsa Loquitor in Medical Malpractice Cases

The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The appellate court explained that while the defendants established they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law by producing an expert affidavit stating they did not depart from the applicable standards of care, the plaintiff adequately rebutted their assertions. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Orders a New Trial in a Medical Malpractice Case Due to Trial Court’s Preclusion of Expert Testimony

Published on: January 14, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Expert testimony is essential in a medical malpractice case, and without it, a plaintiff most likely cannot establish liability or damages. As such, if the court refuses to allow a plaintiff’s expert to testify, it will most likely cripple their case. While there may be grounds for precluding some of an expert’s testimony, barring it all together is not favored, and such actions may be reversed on appeal, as demonstrated in a recent New York medical malpractice case. If you sustained losses due to the incompetence of a doctor, it is wise to contact a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your options for seeking damages.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Allegedly, the plaintiff visited the defendant hospital when she was 21 weeks pregnant. The defendant doctor diagnosed her with inevitable abortion and potential chorioamnionitis, which is an inflammation of tissue in the uterus caused by an infection. She opted not to terminate the pregnancy. She was evaluated two additional times over the following day and again diagnosed with inevitable abortion but was advised that chorioamnionitis was unlikely. She then opted to induce labor to expedite the inevitable abortion.

Reportedly, the plaintiff was induced and gave birth to a stillborn child, A study of the fetal tissue did not reveal evidence of chorioamnionitis. The plaintiff then filed medical malpractice and lack of informed consent claims against the defendants. The case eventually proceeded to trial, and the court precluded the plaintiff’s expert from testifying, as some of his proposed testimony fell outside of the scope of his report. The jury found in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiff moved to vacate the judgment and order a new trial. The trial court denied the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

Establishing Medical Malpractice Under New York Law

Published on: January 12, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

When a patient suffers harm after receiving medical care, their inclination may be to seek compensation from the provider that they believe caused their harm. Merely because a plaintiff sustained injuries does not mean that they will be able to establish that their losses were caused by medical malpractice, though. This was illustrated in a ruling issued by a New York court in a hospital malpractice matter. If you were hurt by the negligence of your health care providers, it is prudent to confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer about your options.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff gave birth to an infant at the defendant hospital. The defendant doctor delivered the infant and the plaintiff’s placenta, which appeared to be intact. Following the delivery, the plaintiff declined to let the defendant doctor examine her uterus and left the hospital against medical advice. She returned two weeks later, however, reporting that she had been bleeding heavily for five days.

It is reported that the plaintiff was diagnosed with a condition where the tissue of her retained placenta grew into the wall of her uterus and had to undergo a hysterectomy. She subsequently filed medical malpractice claims against the defendants. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the court granted their motions. The plaintiff then appealed. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Explains Vicarious Liability in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: January 10, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Patients that receive inadequate care in a hospital emergency room and suffer harm as a result may be able to pursue medical malpractice claims against both the hospital and the doctors that rendered their care. Whether a hospital will be deemed vicariously liable for a patient’s harm depends on numerous factors, though, as discussed in a New York opinion recently issued in a hospital malpractice case. If you suffered harm due to the carelessness of doctors working in a hospital, you have the right to seek compensation for your losses, and you should consult a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is alleged that the plaintiff went to the defendant hospital with complaints of pain in her left elbow following a fall. The defendant attending physicians determined she dislocated her elbow and performed procedures to reduce her elbow, and then discharged her. The plaintiff returned to the defendant hospital later that evening, reporting increased pain and swelling. She was examined by the defendant orthopedist, who determined she should be evaluated by a vascular specialist and transferred her to another hospital.

Reportedly, the plaintiff’s left arm ultimately had to be amputated below the elbow. She filed a complaint against the defendants asserting, among other things, that the defendant hospital should be held vicariously liable for the medical malpractice of the defendant doctors. The defendants filed separate motions for summary judgment, and their motions were denied in part and granted in part. The parties filed various appeals. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Explains Establishing That a Medical Malpractice Verdict Should be Set Aside

Published on: January 8, 2022 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Typically, a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case will submit their claims to a judge rather than a jury. There is always a risk that a jury could issue a ruling that does not comport with the evidence presented, but in such instances, the law allows a party to move to set aside the verdict and seek a new trial. A party moving for such relief faces a high burden of proof, however, as discussed in a recent New York medical malpractice case in which the court denied the plaintiff’s motion to set aside an unfavorable ruling. If you suffered losses due to incompetent medical care, you could be owed damages, and it is smart to confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to assess your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant doctor prescribed the plaintiff, who was 34 years old, birth control pills. The plaintiff later suffered a stroke. She then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting claims of negligence and lack of informed consent. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury issued a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, or in the alternative, to set aside the verdict and grant judgment in her favor as a matter of law. The court denied her motion, and she appealed.

Establishing That a Medical Malpractice Verdict Should be Set Aside

Under New York law, a motion to set aside a verdict and grant judgment as a matter of law will only be granted if there are no permissible inferences or valid line of reasoning that could potentially lead a rational jury to the conclusion made based on the evidence that was presented at the trial. Continue Reading ›