Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog

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

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

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.

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