Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog

In New York medical malpractice cases, the plaintiff initially bears the burden of proof. Specifically, the plaintiff must show that the defendant departed from the accepted and good practice of medicine, thereby causing the plaintiff to suffer harm. As such, if a defendant wishes to obtain dismissal via summary judgment, they must show that the evidence reveals, on its face, that the defendant did not deviate from the standard of care or cause the plaintiff’s injuries. Recently, in an order issued in a medical malpractice case, a New York court reiterated the burdens of proof imposed on parties with respect to medical negligence and lack of informed consent claims. If you suffered losses due to the negligence of a healthcare provider, it is prudent to confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer about your options.

Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a series of heart surgeries over the course of several months. He subsequently contracted an infection and had a stroke after the procedures. He then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, the doctor who performed the surgery, arguing his negligence and failure to obtain the plaintiff’s informed consent constituted malpractice. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to show the defendant’s acts proximately caused the plaintiff’s harm. The court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

The Burden of Proof Imposed on Parties in Medical Malpractice Cases

The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court ruling. The court explained that to obtain dismissal of a medical malpractice claim, a defendant must show, prima facie, it did not deviate from the accepted and good practice of medicine and that any alleged deviation did not cause the plaintiff’s harm. If the defendant meets this burden, the burden then moves to the plaintiff, who must prove that a material issue of fact exists as to either element. Continue Reading ›

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. Continue Reading ›

The COVID-19 pandemic touched most aspects of people’s lives, including in some cases, what courts have jurisdiction over claims against healthcare providers. Specifically, the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) grants federal courts jurisdiction over certain matters related to the COVID-19 pandemic. As explained by a New York court in a recent medical malpractice case, though, the jurisdiction does not necessarily extend to medical malpractice cases. If you recently suffered harm due to negligent care offered while you had COVID-19, you may be owed damages, and you should meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to assess your claims.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the decedent presented to the emergency department of the defendant’s hospital in April 2020. He was admitted with acute respiratory failure and sepsis and was later diagnosed with COVID-19. He died at the hospital five weeks after his admission. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting wrongful death, medical malpractice, and gross negligence claims. The defendant moved the case to federal court, arguing that the PREP Act pre-empted the plaintiff’s state law claims. The plaintiff then filed a motion to remand the matter back to state court, arguing that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

Federal Preemption Under the PREP Act

The federal complete pre-emption doctrine applies when a statute’s pre-emptive force is so compelling that it transforms an ordinary case arising out of state common law claims into a federal action for the purposes of the well-pleaded complaint rule. As such, a plaintiff cannot avoid federal subject matter jurisdiction by pleading claims as if they arise under state law in cases where their claims essentially arise out of federal law. Continue Reading ›

In New York, medical malpractice actions are subject to statutes of limitations. In other words, if an injured party fails to pursue claims against the healthcare provider that caused their harm within the time dictated under the applicable statute, their claims may be time-barred. While the courts generally uphold the statute of limitations, there are circumstances in which it can be tolled. For example, it does not begin to run until the plaintiff learns of the cause of their harm, as discussed in a recent ruling issued in a New York medical malpractice matter. If you sustained losses due to medical oversights, it is smart to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Reportedly, the plaintiff underwent a CT scan of her pelvis and abdomen in May 2014. The defendant radiologist reviewed the test results and observed nodular densities in the lower lobe of the plaintiff’s right lung. The defendant issued a report recommending a follow-up scan, but no scan was conducted. Further, the defendant did not inform the plaintiff of the need for a follow-up or that she most likely had lung cancer and did not advise the plaintiff that the nodules were present.

It is alleged that the plaintiff did not learn of the nodules until October 2019, when she underwent a CT scan at another hospital. In March 2020, she commenced a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. The defendant then asked the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims as time-barred. The court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed. Continue Reading ›

Many people who seek medical care in New York speak Spanish as their primary language. Thus, if they suffer injuries due to incompetent medical care and pursue claims against their providers, they may need to hire an interpreter to translate their testimony during discovery and trial. If the case results in a defense verdict, the unfavorable outcome does not necessarily mean that the interpreter did not perform their duties correctly, however. This was illustrated in a recent medical malpractice ruling in which the court affirmed judgment in favor of the defendant despite the plaintiff’s protestations that the translator negatively impacted their case. If you were harmed by a careless doctor, it is advisable to consult a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to discuss your rights.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff suffered from uterine fibroids, for which she treated with the defendant. The defendant performed surgery on the plaintiff to remove the fibroid. The plaintiff experienced complications following the surgery, which prompted her to file a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. The case proceeded to trial, during which a Spanish interpreter translated for the plaintiff. The jury ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

Proving a Doctor Committed Medical Malpractice

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that she was deprived of a fair trial because one of the interpreters provided by the court incorrectly translated the questions she was asked as well as her testimony. The appellate court noted, however, that the plaintiff failed to ask for a different interpreter, move for a mistrial, or otherwise preserve the issue at trial. Continue Reading ›

In some cases, multiple health care providers will contribute to a patient’s harm. As such, the patient may pursue medical malpractice claims against numerous providers on more than one basis. Each claim will be evaluated individually, though, and while some claims may be adequate, others may be dismissed. This was illustrated by a New York court in a recent opinion delivered in an OB-GYN malpractice case in which the court granted summary judgment as to one defendant but not the other. If you sustained injuries because of incompetent care offered by an OB-GYN, it is prudent to confer with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney regarding your potential causes of action.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the defendant obstetrician delivered the plaintiff’s baby without issue and then proceeded to manually remove her placenta from her uterus. Two weeks later, the defendant gynecologist performed a dilation and curettage procedure in which she removed almost 80 grams of necrotic placental tissue. She also extracted inflamed smooth muscle that was consistent with myometrium and inflamed endometrial tissue that was consistent with chronic endometriosis. Allegedly, the plaintiff subsequently developed severe Asherman’s syndrome and was informed she was no longer able to carry a pregnancy to term. As such, she filed medical malpractice claims against the defendants, alleging their negligence caused her harm. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The plaintiff appealed.

Assessing Expert Evidence in Medical Malpractice Cases

Upon review, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling with regard to the defendant gynecologist but reversed it with regard to the defendant obstetrician. The appellate court explained that while a medical malpractice claim cannot be solely supported by 20/20 hindsight, the post dilation and curettage pathology report allowed for the inference that a portion of the placenta was left in the plaintiff’s uterus following the initial manual removal. Continue Reading ›