Attorneys Jeff D. DeFrancisco and Charles L. Falgiatano
Our Results Speak for ThemselvesWe fight for the rights of clients who have sustained serious injuries or suffered harmful accidents. Our goal is to help each client achieve the best possible outcome.Schedule Your FREE Consultation Today
$13,000,000Verdict for a personal injury case.Schedule Your FREE Consultation Today
$10,500,000Verdict for failure to diagnose cancer.Schedule Your FREE Consultation Today
$3,500,000Settlement for medical malpractice against an ob/gyn for birth injury.Schedule Your FREE Consultation Today
Justia Lawyer Rating
Published on:

Typically, parties in a medical malpractice case will settle their disputes prior to going to trial. If a matter is tried, however, issues of liability and damages will likely be assessed by a jury rather than a judge. While juries are tasked with assessing the evidence presented and making a determination based on that evidence, they do not always issue verdicts in accordance with the evidence. Fortunately, though, the law allows parties to ask the courts to set aside verdicts in medical malpractice matters in which they believe the jury’s verdict is improper. The grounds for vacating a medical malpractice verdict were the topic of a recent New York ruling issued in an allergist malpractice case. If you suffered harm due to the negligence of your allergy doctor, it is smart to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to assess your options for seeking compensation.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the decedent contacted the defendant allergist regarding an allergic reaction. The defendant concluded the decedent’s reaction was caused by a blood pressure medication that he had been taking for the last three years and advised him to stop taking the medication. The defendant saw the decedent on two additional occasions and again confirmed he was no longer taking the drug that caused the reaction.

Allegedly, the defendant failed to confer with the decedent’s primary care physician to inform him the decedent should no longer be taking the medication. The decedent collapsed and died a few weeks later. The cause of death was determined to be anaphylactic shock caused by the drug pressure medication. The decedent’s estate filed a medical malpractice case against the defendant. The cause proceeded to trial, and the jury found in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant then filed a motion to set aside the verdict. Continue reading

Published on:

Children are, sadly, not immune from the consequences of incompetent medical care. Thus, if they suffer harm because of a medical mistake, their parents will often pursue medical malpractice claims on their behalf. While medical malpractice cases involving children differ from those involving adults in some key aspects, the burdens of proof and standards of review are the same in both types of matters. This was demonstrated recently when a New York court evaluated an appeal from an order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a dermatology malpractice case involving the treatment of a child. If you or your child suffered harm due to careless treatment from a dermatologist, it is in your best interest to meet with a Syracuse dermatology malpractice lawyer to discuss your options.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant dermatologist removed a mole from the knee of the nine year old minor plaintiff. He then covered the area with skin grants taken from her buttocks. The plaintiff’s father then commenced a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff, arguing that the defendant performed his professional duties improperly, thereby causing the plaintiff harm.

Allegedly, the defendant asked for dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims via a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he breached the standard of care. The trial court agreed and granted the motion, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff then appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

Medical malpractice trials can be costly and emotionally exhausting, and litigants run the risk that the judge or jury determining liability will rule against them regardless of how persuasive their evidence is. Thus, in many cases, it is prudent for a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case to settle their claims prior to trial. Settling a case is not always as straightforward as merely accepting a defendant’s offer, though, as demonstrated in a recent New York ruling. If you were injured by inadequate medical care, it is smart to speak to Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer regarding your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the decedent went to an urgent care facility funded by the federal government, with complaints of shortness of breath and chest pain lasting a week. He underwent an EKG which was reviewed by the attending physician’s assistant, who assessed it as “OK” but noted a “few PVCs.” She diagnosed the decedent with gastroesophageal reflux disease and sent him home. The following morning, the decedent was found deceased. An autopsy revealed the cause of his death to be a cardiac arrhythmia which was caused by arteriosclerotic heart disease.

Allegedly, the plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the defendant pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (the Act). The plaintiff’s expert subsequently opined that if the physician’s assistant had complied with the standard of care, the decedent’s condition would have been properly treated, and he would still be alive. The parties proceeded to mediation and were able to reach a settlement agreement. The plaintiff then filed a motion for approval of the settlement. Continue reading

Published on:

Collisions frequently cause back and neck injuries and people hurt in crashes have the right to seek compensation for their harm from the parties that caused the accident via civil claims. A plaintiff must respect a defendant’s right to conduct discovery, though, which may include submitting to a medical examination. If they do not, it may adversely impact their right to recover damages, as illustrated in a recent opinion issued in a car accident case in which a New York court sanctioned the plaintiff for refusing to undergo an examination with the defendant’s expert. If you were injured in a car crash, it is smart to speak to a Syracuse car accident lawyer about your options for pursuing a just outcome.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff sustained injuries to his cervical and lumbar spine and right shoulder in a collision involving a car driven by the plaintiff. He subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, who then removed the matter to federal court. During discovery, the defendant obtained information indicating that the plaintiff suffered similar injuries in a previous accident and directed the plaintiff to appear for a medical examination prior to undergoing surgical repair of his injuries.

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent a discectomy without notifying the defendant or appearing for an examination. The defendant moved for sanctions arguing that the plaintiff engaged in spoliation by undergoing surgery prior to a medical exam. The plaintiff opposed the motion, but the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in favor of granting the motion. The court ultimately adopted the magistrate’s report and recommendation and imposed sanctions on the plaintiff. The plaintiff then appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

Many people have jobs that require them to operate motor vehicles. When people cause collisions while they are working, their employers may be deemed vicariously liable for any damages sustained. A plaintiff in a car crash case must prove liability to recover compensation, however, and if they cannot, their claims may be dismissed, as discussed in a recent New York ruling. If you suffered injuries in a collision, you might be owed compensation, and it is in your best interest to meet with a Syracuse car accident lawyer to discuss your possible causes of action.

The Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s vehicle collided with a postal van that was parked on the side of a one-way street. The crash occurred when the plaintiff was attempting to navigate a turn. The plaintiff sustained damages due to the crash and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the federal government pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (the Act). The case proceeded to trial, and following an evidentiary hearing, the judge found that the plaintiff had not met her burden of proof with regards to the elements of her negligence claim and ruled that the government was not liable for the accident.

Proving Liability in a Car Accident Case

The Act allows parties to pursue personal injury claims against the United States for the negligence of a government employee acting within the scope of their employment. Pursuant to the Act, the courts must examine state law to determine whether the government is liable for harm caused by its employees. Continue reading

Published on:

Horses are often thought of as gentle giants, and many people living in New York take pleasure in riding them. Even the most well-trained horses can be unpredictable, though, and there is an inherent risk in horseback riding. As such, a person that suffers harm while riding a horse may have difficulty proving that their harm is compensable. Recently, a New York court issued an opinion discussing the assumption of the risks that accompany riding horses in a case in which the defendant argued it could not be deemed responsible for the plaintiff’s harm. If you were hurt while engaging in a recreational activity, it is in your best interest to speak to a Syracuse personal injury lawyer regarding what damages you may be owed.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Allegedly, the plaintiff visited the defendant ranch to go on a horseback ride. Prior to the ride, she signed numerous documents, including an assumption of risk form. She subsequently embarked on two rides. On her second ride, a wrangler horse from another group became loose. The wrangler horse bumped the plaintiff’s horse and pulled the plaintiff’s reins from her hands. She held onto the saddle, but as the horse began to run, she fell, suffering a broken rib and arm and a contusion to her hip.

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in which she argued that the failure to warn her of the risk of a stampede or to prevent or mitigate the stampede constituted negligence. The defendant moved for the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims through summary judgment, arguing that she assumed the risk of harm. Continue reading

Published on:

Car accidents occur regularly in New York, and many people injured in collisions will seek compensation from the driver they deem responsible for the accident. It is not uncommon for a defendant in a car crash case to argue that the plaintiff actually caused the accident, and therefore, the plaintiff’s claims should be denied. While comparative negligence is a valid defense, it is not grounds for dismissing a plaintiff’s claims at the pleading stage, as explained in an opinion recently issued by a New York court in a car accident case. If you were injured by a negligent driver, it is smart to meet with a Syracuse car accident lawyer to discuss your potential claims.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was operating a motorbike when he was struck by a car driven by the defendant. The defendant driver was reportedly driving at an excessive speed in an attempt to complete her job duties for the day when she made a sudden left turn without using her signal, cutting off the plaintiff. The plaintiff suffered critical injuries in the collision and subsequently filed a lawsuit in federal court asserting negligence claims against the defendant driver and her employer.

Allegedly, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings asking the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims, arguing in part that he was comparatively negligent and, therefore, could not recover compensation. The motion was referred to a magistrate judge, who recommended it be denied. The defendants filed objections to the recommendation. Continue reading

Published on:

In New York birth injury cases, the success of a plaintiff’s claims hinges not on whether the plaintiff can demonstrate they suffered harm but whether they can link that harm to the defendant’s acts or omissions. If they can, they may be awarded damages, but if they cannot, their claims may be dismissed via summary judgment. Recently, a New York court set forth an opinion explaining each party’s burden of proof in birth injury cases, in a matter in which it ultimately denied the defendant’s motion for dismissal. If your child sustained injuries at birth due to the negligence of a health care provider, you should speak to a Syracuse birth injury lawyer about what evidence you must produce to recover compensation.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the mother presented to the defendant hospital when she was 39 weeks pregnant. She reported contractions and a substantial loss of fluid earlier that morning. She was admitted to the hospital, after which the defendant obstetrician was her attending physician. The infant failed to descend through the birth canal, and a c-section was performed later that afternoon.

Allegedly, the following day the child exhibited twitching in her right eye, torticollis, and other symptoms. Testing showed that she suffered an infarct and hemorrhaging in her brain. As a result, she sustained permanent partial right-sided paralysis. The mother filed a lawsuit against the defendants, averring their negligence caused the infant to sustain a birth injury. The defendants moved for dismissal of the mother’s claims via summary judgment, but the trial court denied the motion. The defendant then appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

Delays in obtaining an accurate diagnosis can have grave consequences. As such, doctors who carelessness neglect to provide their patients with a timely diagnosis should be held accountable. A plaintiff harmed by a doctor’s inattentive care can often recover damages for medical malpractice, but if the doctor was a federal employee, the plaintiff must provide adequate notice of the claim prior to filing a lawsuit. The obligations imposed on plaintiffs pursuing claims against medical professionals that are government employees were the topic of a recent opinion issued in a New York primary care malpractice case. If you suffered harm due to the negligence of your primary care physician, it is in your best interest to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is reported that the plaintiff complained of painful urination, foul-smelling urine, and other urological symptoms to the defendant primary care physician on numerous occasions. At the time he was experiencing symptoms, the plaintiff was living in a federal facility, and the defendant physician was a federal employee. Despite his complaints, the defendant did not perform a urine culture or refer the plaintiff to a specialist. When he ultimately went to a specialist a year and a half later, he was diagnosed with Stage IV prostate cancer.

It is alleged that the cancer then spread to his spine, causing him to be paraplegic. He subsequently filed medical malpractice claims against the defendant physician and negligent hiring claims against the defendant facility, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (the Act). The defendants then moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims. Continue reading

Published on:

One of the key components of medical malpractice cases is the standard of care. Specifically, a plaintiff must establish that applies to the allegedly negligent health care provider and provide expert testimony explaining the manner in which the defendant breached the standard. In cases in which the parties produce conflicting evidence regarding what standard applies, the jury is free to accept either party’s assertion. As discussed in a recent opinion issued in a New York radiology malpractice case, the adoption of one expert’s opinion over the other may not constitute grounds for reversal. If you were harmed while undergoing diagnostic imaging, it is wise to speak to a skilled Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent a diagnostic imaging test at the defendant hospital. Prior to the test, an IV was placed in her hand, and during the test, CT contrast media was administered to her at a rate of 1.3 ccs pers second. The contrast media subsequently leaked from her veins into her surrounding tissues, causing her to suffer numerous complications, including compartment syndrome, which required a surgical repair.

It is reported that she subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant hospital and the defendant radiologist who administered the test. As to the defendant radiologist, she alleged that he deviated from the standard of care by administering the contrast media at a flow rate higher than 1.0 ccs per second. At trial, the parties submitted conflicting expert testimony regarding what was required under the applicable standard of care. The jury ultimately found in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading

Contact Information