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:

Generally, parties cannot be held responsible for harm caused by the criminal acts of other individuals. There are exceptions, though, that would allow for the imposition of liability. For example, in a recent New York opinion, a court examined whether an airline could be deemed accountable for one passenger’s sexual assault of another. If you suffered harm while flying, you might be able to pursue claims against multiple parties, and it is advisable to speak to a Syracuse personal injury attorney about your potential causes of action.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is alleged that in June 2017, the plaintiff boarded a flight operated by the defendant airline that was traveling from Colorado, to Arizona, to New York. She sat in the window seat, and another passenger sat in the aisle seat. Shortly before takeoff, the tortfeasor sat in the middle seat of the row, next to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the tortfeasor smelled of alcohol and was stumbling, slurring his words, and was fidgeting and agitated.

It is reported, though, that other parties testified that the tortfeasor was merely enthusiastic. At some point during the flight, the tortfeasor sexually assaulted the plaintiff. The plaintiff ultimately filed a lawsuit against the defendant, arguing, among other things, that its negligence caused the plaintiff harm. The plaintiff then moved for summary judgment on numerous issues. Continue reading

Published on:

People who suffer from concerning symptoms will typically present to their doctor to obtain a diagnosis and any necessary treatment. If a doctor fails to conduct the tests needed to obtain an accurate view of a patient’s health or neglects to advise them of the risks associated with a proposed course of care, however, the patient’s condition may worsen, and the doctor may be liable for medical malpractice. Recently, a New York court explained the evidentiary burdens imposed on parties in medical malpractice cases in an opinion in which it affirmed the existence of factual disputes that necessitated a trial. If you were injured by your doctor’s errors, you have the right to seek compensation, and you should meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent presented to the defendant’s radiology center for CT scans of the chest on numerous occasions from 2011 through 2014. Based on the findings of the tests, the defendants diagnosed her with small airway inflammatory disease. In the spring of 2014, though, she underwent a PET scan and fine-needle aspiration, which ultimately revealed malignant cells.

Reportedly, the plaintiff brought a lack of informed consent and medical malpractice claims against the defendants. Following her death, the administrator of her estate was substituted as the plaintiff. The defendants moved to have the plaintiff’s claims dismissed via summary judgment, but the trial court denied their motion. They then appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

Mistakes made by medical professionals tending to a mother during labor and delivery can have devastating consequences and may constitute grounds for pursuing medical malpractice claims. Defendants accused of medical negligence rarely admit liability, however, and in fact, in most cases, will assert that the court should find in their favor. In a recent opinion issued in a case in which the plaintiff asserted that she and her infant suffered harm due to medical malpractice, the court examined what each party must prove with respect to motions for summary judgment. If you or your child sustained injuries due to errors during or after the birthing process, you might be able to recover damages, and you should confer with a trusted Syracuse medical malpractice attorney.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is alleged that the plaintiff presented to the defendant’s hospital to deliver her infant son. Complications arose during delivery, and the child ultimately suffered injuries. The mother brought a lawsuit against the defendants alleging their medical negligence caused her and her son to suffer harm. The defendants moved for summary judgment in their favor. The trial court denied the defendants’ motions, and they appealed.

Dismissal of a Plaintiff’s Claims in a Medical Malpractice Case

After reviewing the evidence presented, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling. The appellate court explained that a defendant pursuing summary judgment in a medical malpractice case must demonstrate, prima facie, either that they did not depart from the accepted practice of medicine or that any alleged deviation from the standard of care did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s injuries. Continue reading

Published on:

Defendants in New York medical malpractice cases will often not only deny liability but will also assert that the evidence so clearly demonstrates their lack of fault that they should be granted judgment in their favor as a matter of law. A defendant seeking summary judgment in a medical malpractice case faces a high burden of proof, however, as demonstrated in a recent opinion issued by a New York court. If you sustained injuries due to the recklessness of a physician, you should contact a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible to discuss what you must prove to recover damages.

Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff commenced a lawsuit against the defendants, asserting lack of informed consent, medical malpractice, and wrongful death claims arising out of the treatment and care of her deceased father. Specifically, she alleged that their failure to diagnose his lung cancer in a timely manner caused his premature demise. The defendants each moved for summary judgment; the plaintiff opposed their motions and submitted redacted expert affirmations in support of her opposition.

Published on:

In most medical malpractice cases filed in New York, the plaintiff has the right to choose the venue where the matter will be heard. There are exceptions to the general rule, though, such as in cases in which the parties entered into an agreement containing provisions relating to forum selection. While forum selection clauses are clearly enforceable if they are signed by both parties in a case, it is less evident if they should be upheld when another person signed on one party’s behalf. Recently, a New York court issued an opinion in a medical malpractice case in which it discussed apparent authority in the context of agreements containing forum selection clauses. If you suffered losses due to negligent medical care, it is advisable to meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney concerning your potential claims.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent was a resident at the defendant’s nursing home prior to his death. After he passed away, the plaintiff, the decedent’s daughter, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting medical malpractice and wrongful death claims. The plaintiff filed the case in Bronx County, but the defendant moved to transfer the matter to Westchester County based on an agreement signed by the plaintiff at the time of the decedent’s admission.

It is reported that the trial court denied the motion due to the fact that the defendant neglected to offer proof that the plaintiff had apparent authority to enter into the agreement on the decedent’s behalf. The defendant subsequently renewed its motion, relying on the plaintiff’s deposition testimony to establish apparent authority. Continue reading

Published on:

Federal law deems certain communications privileged and protects them from disclosure. For example, confidential communications between spouses are generally not discoverable. Recently, a New York court discussed the spousal privilege in the context of medical malpractice cases, in a matter in which it ultimately rejected the defendant’s objection to the invocation of the privilege. If you incurred damages due to the negligence of a health care provider and you are interested in pursuing claims for compensation, it is advisable to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer about your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is reported that the plaintiff commenced a lawsuit against the defendant in federal court, asserting medical malpractice claims, among other things, arising out of the death of her father while he was in the defendant’s care. The case progressed through discovery, and the defendant sought information from the plaintiff and her husband regarding conversations they had about the decedent’s admission to the defendant’s facility and his ongoing care. The plaintiff argued that such communications were protected under the spousal privilege. The defendant objected to the invocation of the privilege.

Published on:

People seeking damages for medical malpractice in civil lawsuits have the right to a fair trial in front of an impartial jury. If that right is violated by the judge or an attorney, it may be grounds for reversing the outcome of the case. This was demonstrated in a recent opinion issued in a New York medical malpractice matter in which the appellate court ordered a new trial due to prejudicial comments from the trial court judge. If you were harmed by negligent medical care, you have the right to seek compensation, and it is advisable to speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that in 2012, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to diagnose his skin cancer in a timely manner, which ultimately led to the amputation of a toe on his left foot. The defendant moved for dismissal via summary judgment, but the court denied his motion. A trial was held, after which the jury ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that he did not deviate from the accepted practice of medicine. The trial court then issued a corrected judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.

The Right to an Impartial Trial in Medical Malpractice Cases

The appellate court stated that, although the issue was not preserved for appellate review, the verdict in favor of the defendant must be set aside and the matter remitted for a new trial in the interest of justice. Specifically, the appellate court stated that comments made by the trial court judge and the defendant’s attorney during the course of the trial deprived the plaintiff of his right to a fair trial and potentially could have unjustly influenced the jury. Continue reading

Published on:

Typically, the earlier cancer is diagnosed, the better a patient’s prognosis is; thus, delayed diagnoses caused by medical oversights can drastically impair a person’s outcome. People harmed by a missed or delayed diagnosis will often pursue medical malpractice claims against their doctors, and while in some cases, liability is clear in others, it is less certain. In a recent opinion delivered in a New York medical malpractice case, the court discussed what evidence each party must offer to show that judgment should be granted in their favor. If you suffered losses due to a missed diagnosis, you have the right to seek damages, and you should meet with a Syracuse medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent met with the defendant after a CAT scan showed a mass in his abdomen. The defendant performed an endoscopy, took biopsies, and ultimately diagnosed the decedent with adenocarcinoma. He underwent chemotherapy, but after the mass was removed, it was determined to be a different type of cancer that required an alternative treatment plan. The decedent’s diagnosis was later reverted back to adenocarcinoma, but he ultimately died due to cancer complications in 2012.

Published on:

Generally, car accidents are caused by reckless driving. Thus, a person injured in a car crash will typically seek compensation from the driver they deem responsible for the collision. Defendants rarely concede their liability, but unless they can establish a non-negligent reason for an accident, they may be deemed culpable. Recently, a New York court discussed what evidence is sufficient to rebut an inference of negligence in a chain-reaction car crash case. If you sustained injuries in a collision caused by another driver, you have the right to seek compensation, and it is smart to contact a Syracuse personal injury lawyer regarding your potential claims.

The History of the Case

Reportedly, the plaintiff was the driver of the first car in a four-car chain-reaction collision. The defendant was operating the second car at the time of the crash. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging he negligently caused the accident and the plaintiff’s subsequent harm. The defendant moved for dismissal via summary judgment. The court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Negligence in the Context of Car Accident Cases

In New York, a defendant seeking dismissal of a negligence claim via summary judgment must show that they were not at fault in the subject accident. The appellate court explained that an accident can have more than one proximate cause, and the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of establishing they are not at fault as a matter of law. Continue reading

Published on:

Even seemingly minor rear-end collisions can cause significant injuries. Although the second driver in a rear-end crash is typically deemed responsible, the first driver must nonetheless prove fault and that the accident caused them to suffer harm in order to recover damages. It is not uncommon in lawsuits arising from rear-end collisions for the defendant to admit fault but to argue that the plaintiff did not actually suffer serious harm as a result of the crash. Recently, a New York court assessed what a defendant must prove to establish they did not cause a plaintiff’s harm in cases arising out of rear-end collisions. If you were hurt in a car crash, it is in your best interest to speak to a Syracuse personal injury lawyer as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was driving her vehicle when it was struck from behind by a car driven by the defendant. The impact caused the plaintiff’s vehicle to propel forward into the car in front of her. She suffered injuries in the accident and subsequently brought negligence claims against the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the issues of whether the plaintiff’s alleged harm arose out of the accident and whether she suffered a severe injury. The court denied her motion, and she appealed.

Establishing a Car Accident Caused a Serious Injury

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying her motion because she met her initial burden of proof by establishing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury that was causally related to the accident. Further, the defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the presence of a triable issue of fact in her opposition. Continue reading

Contact Information