Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog
In medical malpractice litigation, clarity and timeliness in stating claims are essential. Once a case has progressed past the discovery phase and has been certified as ready for trial, courts are reluctant to allow major changes to a plaintiff’s theory of the case, as demonstrated in a recent New York case in which the court affirmed the denial of a plaintiff’s request to amend his bill of particulars years into the litigation. If you believe you were harmed by incompetent medical care, a seasoned Syracuse medical malpractice attorney can help take the steps necessary to preserve your rights.
History of the Case
It is reported that in May 2017, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action against the defendants, a physician and a medical facility, alleging improper care and treatment. A note of issue, signifying the close of discovery and readiness for trial, was filed in January 2021.
It is alleged that several months later, the defendant physician moved for summary judgment, asserting that the care provided complied with accepted medical standards. The second defendant subsequently filed a similar motion. Rather than respond to these motions in the usual course, the plaintiff cross-moved in May 2022 for leave to amend the bill of particulars as to both defendants. The proposed amendments sought to modify and expand upon the allegations of negligence. The trial court denied both of the plaintiff’s cross-motions to amend, citing their untimeliness. The plaintiff appealed both rulings.
Amendments in Medical Malpractice Claims
On appeal, the court upheld the trial court’s denial of the motions to amend the bill of particulars. The court began by reiterating the general rule that leave to amend should be freely granted in the absence of prejudice or surprise. However, the court emphasized that this principle is substantially limited once a case has been certified for trial.
Once certification has occurred, the moving party must demonstrate “special and extraordinary circumstances” to justify a late amendment. This heightened standard reflects the need for finality and order in litigation, especially as trial approaches. The appellate court noted that the plaintiff’s request came more than five years after the action was filed, over a year after certification, and 10 months after the defendants had moved for summary judgment. The court found that the plaintiff offered no reasonable excuse for this delay and failed to establish any extraordinary circumstances that would warrant deviation from the normal rules.
Moreover, the court observed that the trial court’s discretion in managing such procedural matters is entitled to significant deference. Unless that discretion is abused or clearly unsupported by the facts, appellate courts will not overturn those decisions. Here, the court found that the trial court’s determination was well-grounded and appropriate given the procedural history.
Speak with an Experienced Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney
Litigation requires careful adherence to procedural rules, and delays in articulating or modifying malpractice claims can significantly impair a plaintiff’s case. If you are considering filing a malpractice claim or are already involved in litigation, the knowledgeable Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can help you navigate each step. Contact us at 833-200-2000 or reach out online to schedule a consultation and learn more about your legal options.