Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog

Personal Injury Litigant Should Have Been Allowed to Depose Assailant’s Psychiatric Providers, Says Appellate Tribunal in New York

Published on: June 8, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Syracuse personal injury cases have many steps. Once an attorney has been contacted and an investigation has been made into the facts of the event giving rise to the litigation, the next step is to file a formal complaint in a court of law. After that, the case proceeds to the discovery phase.

Just as the name suggests, the discovery phase of litigation is the time during which each side is allowed an opportunity to learn more about his or her opponent’s case. Of course, there are limitations on the scope of such discovery, and disputes can arise regarding whether one party or the other has stepped over the line of what is acceptable.

The trial court controls the discovery phase of litigation, ruling upon the various motions of the litigants as the matter progresses. When a ruling is unfavorable, the affected party may be able to have the matter reviewed by a higher court (although, in some situations, the matter cannot be appealed until after the case has proceeded to a later phase of litigation, such as trial or disposition by summary judgment).

Denial of Summary Judgment in Medical Negligence Case Upheld on Appeal by New York Court

Published on: May 31, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

In a Syracuse medical malpractice lawsuit, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This means that he or she must be able to prove the elements of professional negligence, including a deviation from the acceptable standard of care and proximate causation between this breach of care and the injuries for which the plaintiff seeks monetary compensation, by a preponderance of the evidence.

Because issues of professional negligence typically involve matters that are beyond a layman’s knowledge, most malpractice cases involve the testimony of multiple expert witnesses, who are called upon to explain complex matters in a way that will help jurors resolve the issues. Often, the plaintiff and the defendant will each have experts, and those experts’ opinions may vary widely. Assuming that a case survives the summary judgment phase of litigation, it will be the jury’s job to decide which side has “made their case,” so to speak.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case appealed from the Supreme Court for Bronx County, the plaintiff was a woman who suffered from a large aneurysm in the artery behind her left eye. She received various treatment for this condition, including the placing of a stent and a balloon occlusion test performed by the defendant doctor. In response to the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim, the doctor sought summary judgment insofar as it concerned the plaintiff’s post-surgical treatment after the aforementioned medical procedures. The trial court denied the doctor’s motion, and he appealed.

New York Court Finds That Summary Judgment Was Erroneous in Birth Injury Malpractice Case

Published on: May 28, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

While mothers and infants generally fare much better during labor and delivery than they did in years past, Syracuse birth injuries still happen regularly. Obstetricians, anesthesiologists, nurses, and others are quick to point out that complications can arise even when healthcare workers “do everything right.”

However, these medical workers are human, and they don’t always “do everything right.” When things go wrong, the costs on the family can be staggering. Medical expenses, lost wage for the parent(s), lost earning potential for the child, and pain and suffering are all damages for which a malpractice victim can be financially compensated by the jury in a medical malpractice case – if the case makes it to trial.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a minor child who was born at the defendant hospital via an emergency cesarean section. The plaintiff’s complaint setting forth a claim for medical malpractice alleged that his birth occurred after a prolonged slowing of his heartbeat during delivery and that he suffered numerous injuries as a result from the defendant’s deviation from the accepted standard of care. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, urging the trial court to hold that the plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue material fact such that proceeding to trial was necessary.

New York Woman’s Medical Malpractice Claims Against Out-of-State Medical Providers Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction

Published on: May 21, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

One of the first questions that must be dealt with in a Syracuse medical malpractice case is that of jurisdiction. This is usually a fairly straightforward issue, as the plaintiff and his or her physicians or other attendant medical personnel typically all reside within the state in which the allegedly negligent medical treatment took place.

This is not always so, however. In such instances, there may be a plausible argument for jurisdiction in multiple states, or in multiple courts within a single state. Sometimes, the question is whether to file suit in state or federal court. An established medical malpractice lawyer can assist you in determining the best course of action if you or a loved one has been injured by a doctor or nurse’s mistake.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, arising in the Supreme Court, Kings County, the plaintiff was a woman who was involved in a New Jersey automobile accident in 2013. As a result of the wreck, the plaintiff was treated by various medical providers and was prescribed a certain medication. According to the woman’s complaint against several healthcare providers and drug manufacturers, she developed a condition known as “Stevens Johnson syndrome” as a result of the medication that she took following the car crash. The plaintiff’s prescription was allegedly filled in New York, although at least some of her medical care took place in New Jersey. She filed suit in 2014, seeking to recover money damages on several different legal theories, including medical malpractice, strict product liability, failure to warn, and breach of warranty.

Summary Judgment to Pedestrian on Issue of Liability in Crosswalk Accident Case Affirmed by New York Appellate Tribunal

Published on: May 14, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

There are four steps to establishing liability in a Syracuse car accident case: duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Once each of these elements has been proven, the remaining issue is usually the amount of money damages necessary to compensate the plaintiff for his or her pain and suffering, lost wages, and medical expenses.

Sometimes, the trial court will rule, in advance of trial, that the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law as to liability because the defendant has not presented enough evidence for the case to go the jury on this issue. When this happens, a trial is only necessary if the parties cannot agree on a dollar figure on the damages issues. Of course, a defendant may resist a pre-trial ruling on liability, and he or she may even ask for appellate review if such a ruling is made.

Facts of the Case

In a recent pedestrian accident case arising in the Supreme Court of New York County, the plaintiff was a woman who claimed that the defendant motorist struck her while she was crossing an intersection. The plaintiff further averred that she was within the crosswalk at the time of the accident, that the traffic light was in her favor, that the defendant was making a left turn at the time of impact, and that she suffered numerous injuries due to his negligence. The plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. The defendant opposed the plaintiff’s motion, but the trial court rejected the defendant’s arguments and ruled in the plaintiff’s favor. The defendant appealed.

Summary Judgment Should Have Been Granted to Motorist in New York Rear-End Collision Accident Case

Published on: May 7, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Although a Syracuse car accident can happen in many different ways, rear-end collisions, side-impact accidents, and head-on crashes are some of the most common scenarios for car wrecks nowadays. Driver distraction or inattention, speeding, and drunk or impaired driving are common causes of these types of car accidents. In motor vehicle accident cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that the accident proximately resulted from a breach of duty on the defendant’s part.

If the plaintiff cannot produce sufficient evidence to raise a question for the trier of fact on the question of negligence, his or her case is likely to be dismissed prior to trial. This is one of the many reasons why it is important to be represented by a qualified accident attorney in such cases.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a woman who was riding in the car of the first defendant as they traveled along a busy highway. An SUV that had been traveling in the same vicinity as the first defendant allegedly “suddenly merged” and stopped in front of the first defendant’s vehicle. The first defendant was able to stop without rear-ending the SUV, but the second defendant, who was traveling behind the first defendant in traffic, was unable to stop and ran into the back of the first defendant’s vehicle. The plaintiff sued both the first defendant and the second defendant, seeking monetary compensation for injuries she allegedly sustained in the crash.

New York Appellate Court Agrees with Plaintiff in Medical Malpractice Case That Doctor Should Submit to Additional Deposition

Published on: April 30, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

A Syracuse medical malpractice case begins with the plaintiff filing a lawsuit against the allegedly negligent doctor, hospital, or another medical provider. The defendant(s) then files an answer, addressing each of the allegations made by the plaintiff in his or her suit.

From there, the case typically proceeds to the discovery phase of litigation, a time during which each party has an opportunity to send written interrogatories and requests to produce documents to the other. These are usually followed up by depositions of the parties and their respective medical expert witnesses. If the parties cannot agree on the handling of the discovery phase of the litigation, it is likely that one or both parties will seek the court’s help, sometimes by a motion to compel.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiffs were a husband and wife who sued several defendants, including a hospital, a medical doctor, and a radiology group, asserting a claim for medical malpractice due to the defendants’ alleged negligence in the treatment of the male plaintiff and seeking monetary compensation for the plaintiffs’ damages resulting from the defendants’ conduct. During the pre-trial phase of the case, a dispute arose between the parties with regard to whether the defendant doctor should be compelled to attend a further deposition and answer certain questions regarding certain subsequent medical treatment of the male plaintiff.

Summary Judgment to Ambulance Company Affirmed by New York Appellate Tribunal

Published on: April 28, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

Birth injuries caused by negligence during childbirth and delivery are, unfortunately, quite common. Just like surgeons and general practitioners, obstetricians and pediatricians sometimes make mistakes, and both mother and child can suffer serious, sometimes even fatal, consequences.

As with other types of Syracuse medical malpractice lawsuits, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence. Typically, the defendant will attempt to get the case dismissed prior to trial via summary judgment.

When this happens, the result usually depends on the strength of the parties’ respective medical expert witnesses. Unless there is a genuine issue of material fact presented by their affidavits, the court will likely rule in the defendant’s favor.

Negligent Entrustment Claim Should Have Survived Summary Judgment in Claim Brought by Family of New York Woman Killed in Scooter Accident

Published on: April 21, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

In a Syracuse motorcycle accident negligence lawsuit, the premise is simple: the defendant should be held legally liable to the person or family who was hurt by his, her, or its failure to act in a reasonably prudent manner. Four elements are required in order to prove negligence: duty, breach of duty, damages, and proximate cause.

In a car, truck , or motorcycle accident case, the defendant is usually averred to have breached a duty by failing to operate his or her vehicle as required by law. Speeding, distracted driving, and failure to yield are common examples of these types of claims. Sometimes, however, liability can arise in other situations.

Regardless of who is named as the defendant in a negligence lawsuit, the basic issue is, did the defendant conduct arise to a level that was unreasonable (or illegal) under the circumstances? If so, he or she can potentially be held liable for the damages incurred by the injured party or his or her family.

New York Court Affirms Summary Judgment to Doctors in Medical Malpractice Case Arising from Patient’s Death Due to Pulmonary Embolism

Published on: April 14, 2020 | By Jeff DeFrancisco

A doctor or healthcare provider’s failure to diagnose and/or properly treat a pulmonary embolism can result in a Syracuse surgical malpractice claim. Potentially life-threatening, a pulmonary embolism occurs when a blood clot (usually from another part of the body) blocks one of the pulmonary arteries in the lungs.

A pulmonary embolism can result in shortness of breath, chest pain, and cough; less common symptoms include irregular heartbeat, dizziness, sweating, swelling, and fever. If not promptly diagnosed or properly treated, a pulmonary embolism can cause serious injury or even death in some patients. Because surgery is one of the main causes of blood clots that result in pulmonary embolism, it is especially important that surgeons take measures to prevent, recognize, and/or treat such conditions in their patients.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recently decided case arising in the Supreme Court of New York County was the administratrix of a 49-year-old woman who died from a pulmonary embolism that was allegedly caused by bilateral deep vein thromboses in her legs. According to the plaintiff’s complaint against the defendants (a family medicine physician, a cardiologist, and others), the decedent’s condition developed after she underwent a two-day back surgery. Both the family medicine physician and the cardiologist consulted on the decedent’s care. They also allegedly reviewed certain electrocardiograms that showed T wave inversions. In the plaintiff’s view, the defendants deviated from good and accepted standards of medicine by failing to order additional testing in order to determine the cause of the decedent’s T wave inversion.