Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog
When patients undergo surgery, they trust their doctors to follow accepted medical standards and provide proper care during recovery. Unfortunately, not every patient’s experience meets that expectation. When complications arise after surgery, determining whether they stem from medical negligence or natural healing challenges can be complex. A recent New York decision highlights how courts evaluate these claims and what evidence is necessary to proceed to trial. If you or someone you love suffered complications after surgery, consulting an experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorney can help you understand your rights and whether the facts of your case support a claim.
Factual and Procedural Background
It is reported that the plaintiff initiated a medical malpractice action against the defendants, a group of orthopedic physicians and their affiliated medical practice, alleging negligent treatment following a knee injury. The plaintiff underwent surgical repair for a torn meniscus, followed by post-operative care administered by the defendant physicians. After the procedure, the plaintiff continued to experience swelling, pain, and instability in the operated knee, ultimately claiming that the defendants’ improper surgical technique and inadequate follow-up caused additional damage requiring further medical intervention.
Allegedly, the plaintiff contended that the defendants failed to properly assess imaging studies, misdiagnosed the extent of the injury, and failed to advise on or implement appropriate physical therapy protocols. The complaint further asserted that the defendants’ conduct deviated from accepted medical standards and proximately caused prolonged pain and functional impairment. The defendants denied the allegations and moved for summary judgment, submitting expert affirmations asserting that all care provided complied with accepted orthopedic practices and that the plaintiff’s residual symptoms resulted from pre-existing degenerative changes, not medical negligence.
It is reported that in opposing summary judgment, the plaintiff relied on an expert affirmation that broadly asserted that the defendants’ surgical and post-operative care were inadequate. However, the expert did not specify what alternative techniques should have been used or how the alleged deviations directly caused the plaintiff’s continued symptoms. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiff appealed.
Expert Testimony Sufficient to Defeat Summary Judgment
On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision, emphasizing that a defendant in a medical malpractice case establishes prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by presenting expert testimony that the treatment provided conformed to accepted medical standards and did not proximately cause injury. Once that burden is met, the plaintiff must produce expert evidence raising a triable issue of fact both as to deviation and causation.
The court found that the defendants’ expert, an orthopedic surgeon, provided a detailed and well-supported affirmation addressing each of the plaintiff’s claims, including surgical technique, post-operative management, and diagnostic evaluation. The expert concluded that the treatment was appropriate, that any subsequent knee issues were unrelated to the care provided, and that the plaintiff’s complaints were consistent with pre-existing degeneration.
The court held that the plaintiff’s opposing expert failed to create a material issue of fact because the opinion was speculative, conclusory, and lacked evidentiary support. The expert did not identify specific acts or omissions constituting negligence or explain how they proximately caused injury. As such, the plaintiff’s submission was insufficient to rebut the defendants’ prima facie showing.
The court reiterated the established principle that expert opinions must be based on facts in the record and must articulate a specific causal relationship between the alleged malpractice and the claimed injury. Conclusory assertions, unsupported by medical reasoning or record evidence, are inadequate to defeat summary judgment. Thus, the court unanimously affirmed the order granting summary judgment to the defendants.
Consult an Experienced Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney
If you suffered harm because of the carelessness of a healthcare provider, it is in your best interest to speak to an attorney about your rights and options. The experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can help you pursue justice and compensation for your injuries. Contact us today at 833-200-2000 or online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.