Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog
Expert testimony is a key component of New York medical malpractice cases. There are numerous differences between the testimony offered by lay and expert witnesses, including the fact that expert opinions must be grounded on reliable methodologies and deductions. If a party disputes the reliability of an expert’s methods, they can issue a Frye challenge. Recently, a New York court discussed the grounds for precluding an expert from testifying pursuant to the Frye standard in a medical malpractice case in which the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s expert relied on novel science. If you were harmed by negligent medical care, you have the right to seek compensation, and it is in your best interest to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer regarding your possible claims.
The Facts of the Case
It is alleged that the plaintiff sought treatment from the defendant for joint pain. The defendant diagnosed the plaintiff with rheumatoid arthritis and prescribed her methotrexate. She subsequently experienced pain, numbness, and swelling in her right leg and was later diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy. Other physicians disputed whether she had rheumatoid arthritis. The plaintiff subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that he negligently misdiagnosed her and prescribed her methotrexate. The defendant sought a Frye order precluding the plaintiff’s expert from testifying prior to trial.
Frye Hearings in Medical Malpractice Cases
Under New York law, a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case must establish that the defendant’s departure from the accepted and good practice of medicine proximately caused the plaintiff to suffer damages. In the subject case, the defendant challenged the plaintiff’s assertions regarding causation on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegation that methotrexate caused her to develop peripheral neuropathy was not based on a theory that was generally accepted in the medical community.
Under the Frye test, a proponent of novel science must demonstrate it is generally accepted among parties working within the applicable discipline in order to justify its admission. The court explained, though, that competing expert theories regarding causation do not warrant a Frye hearing. In the subject case, as the defendant was the party seeking a Frye ruling, he bore the burden of showing that the plaintiff’s expert’s opinion was not the result of reliable methodology. As he failed to do so, the court denied his motion.
Consult a Capable Syracuse Medical Malpractice Lawyer
While most parties in medical malpractice cases must rely on expert testimony to support their positions, expert opinions are subject to strict standards, and experts will not be permitted to testify if they did not derive their conclusions with sound methods. If you were harmed by an incompetent doctor, you should consult an attorney to determine what evidence you must produce to recover damages. The capable Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys of DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can assess the circumstances surrounding your losses and gather the evidence needed to provide you with a strong chance of obtaining a favorable outcome. You can contact us through our form online or by calling us at 833-200-2000 to set up a meeting.