Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

New York Court Discusses Shields From Medical Malpractice Liability

Published on: June 12, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

The COVID-19 pandemic placed extraordinary demands on hospitals and healthcare providers throughout New York, prompting lawmakers to enact temporary legal protections for medical professionals responding to the public health emergency. Those protections, however, did not automatically shield every healthcare provider from liability. Instead, courts must carefully examine whether a patient’s treatment was actually affected by pandemic-related conditions and whether the provider’s conduct falls within the statute’s scope. A recent New York decision demonstrates how courts evaluate these issues when deciding whether a medical malpractice claim may proceed. If you believe you suffered injuries because of negligent medical care, you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to determine whether emergency immunity laws may affect your case.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital in April 2020 after experiencing fever, respiratory symptoms, and an abnormal electrocardiogram. He tested positive for COVID-19, later required mechanical ventilation, and remained hospitalized for several weeks before being discharged to a rehabilitation facility. During his hospitalization, he developed pressure ulcers and other tissue injuries. Shortly after his discharge, he returned to the hospital because of additional medical complications and again tested positive for COVID-19 before ultimately returning to rehabilitation.

Reportedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action against the hospital and several physicians, asserting that they departed from accepted standards of medical care by failing to prevent and treat his pressure ulcers properly. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that they were immune from liability under New York’s Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act because the plaintiff’s care occurred during the height of the COVID-19 emergency when hospital operations were significantly affected by staffing shortages, resource limitations, and emergency treatment protocols. The plaintiff opposed the motion, contending that the defendants’ conduct constituted gross negligence and therefore fell outside the statute’s protections. Continue Reading ›

New York Courts Evaluate Conflicting Expert Reports in Medical Malpractice Case

Published on: June 6, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice lawsuits often involve complicated medical issues that require expert testimony to help courts determine whether healthcare providers complied with accepted standards of care. When qualified experts disagree about what happened or whether a provider acted negligently, those disputes generally must be resolved by a jury rather than a judge. This was illustrated in a recent New York decision in which conflicting expert opinions prevented the defendants from obtaining summary judgment, allowing the injured patients to proceed to trial. If you or a loved one suffered harm because of negligent medical care, you should promptly speak with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to discuss your legal rights and potential claims.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent a medical abortion and later experienced prolonged heavy bleeding, anemia, and other complications. She continued receiving follow-up care from her obstetrical providers, where blood testing eventually revealed critically low hemoglobin levels. The plaintiff contended that her healthcare providers failed to timely recognize and respond to her worsening condition, delayed communicating life-threatening laboratory results, and failed to properly diagnose retained products of conception and infection. After her condition deteriorated, she was admitted to a hospital, underwent additional treatment, and later experienced respiratory complications that ultimately resulted in severe neurological injuries.

Reportedly, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against multiple healthcare providers, asserting that numerous departures from accepted medical practice caused her injuries. Following discovery, several defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the medical care they provided complied with accepted standards and that none of their actions caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff opposed the motions by submitting expert opinions challenging the defendants’ evidence and identifying numerous departures from accepted medical practice. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Addresses Expert Testimony Requirements in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: May 14, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice cases frequently turn on competing expert opinions regarding whether a healthcare provider departed from accepted standards of care and whether any alleged negligence caused a patient’s injuries. As a result, courts closely scrutinize expert submissions, particularly when a party seeks to defeat a motion for summary judgment. A recent New York ruling demonstrates the importance of presenting expert testimony that is both reliable and sufficiently tailored to the medical issues in dispute. If you lost a loved one due to negligent medical treatment, it is important to understand your legal rights, and you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the decedent was receiving outpatient dialysis treatment at the defendant’s facility in August 2018 when he suffered a fall. Following the incident, he was transported to a hospital, where medical providers performed a CT scan of his head before discharging him later that same day. The decedent subsequently returned to the dialysis facility for additional treatments, and no significant concerns were documented over the next several weeks.

It is alleged that on September 13, 2018, the decedent displayed signs of confusion during a dialysis appointment. He was later evaluated at a hospital, where a second CT scan revealed the presence of a subdural hematoma. The decedent remained hospitalized and ultimately passed away on September 27, 2018. Following his death, the plaintiff commenced an action seeking damages for medical malpractice, wrongful death, and related claims against the dialysis facility and others. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Clarifies Limits on Expanding Nursing Home Liability Claims

Published on: May 8, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice and wrongful death cases involving nursing homes often raise questions about whether plaintiffs can broaden their claims as litigation progresses. While courts generally permit parties to clarify allegations and provide additional factual details, they distinguish between amplifying existing claims and introducing entirely new legal theories. A recent New York decision highlights this important procedural rule and explains why plaintiffs cannot use a supplemental bill of particulars to add a new statutory cause of action that was not included in the original complaint. If you lost a loved one due to negligent medical care in a nursing home or rehabilitation facility, you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims.

Factual and Procedural Background

Allegedly, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice and wrongful death action against a rehabilitation and healthcare facility and other defendants after the death of their adult son. According to the complaint, the decedent resided at the facility and regularly received care there. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants failed to properly administer a course of Heparin and that this failure caused the decedent to suffer cardiac arrest in September 2017, resulting in his death shortly thereafter.

New York Court Disusses Discovery in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: April 10, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Medical malpractice cases involving pediatric injuries often require extensive discovery to fully evaluate the nature and extent of a child’s condition, the treatment provided, and any underlying factors that may affect causation. When discovery requests are disputed, courts must balance the need for broad disclosure with the protection of vulnerable parties, particularly when young children are involved. A recent New York opinion illustrates how courts approach discovery disputes in complex malpractice claims and reinforces that parties cannot avoid disclosure without a clear legal basis. If your child suffered harm due to improper medical treatment, it is critical to understand your rights, and you should talk to a Rochester medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims.

Factual and Procedural Background

Allegedly, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice action seeking damages on behalf of an infant plaintiff, claiming that the defendants failed to properly diagnose and treat a fracture in the child’s leg, resulting in a limb length discrepancy.

It is alleged that the injury occurred when the infant plaintiff was approximately four years old and that the defendants’ failure to provide appropriate medical care caused long-term complications affecting the child’s growth and development. Continue Reading ›

Court Discusses Breaches of the Standard of Care in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: April 6, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Surgical malpractice cases often center on whether physicians took appropriate steps to identify and protect critical anatomical structures during procedures. Even when a complication is known, courts must determine whether it resulted from accepted risks or from preventable errors in technique, monitoring, or judgment. A recent New York ruling demonstrates how conflicting expert opinions regarding surgical conduct can prevent dismissal and require a jury to resolve key issues of negligence and causation. If you suffered a life-altering injury following surgery, you may be owed damages, and it is in your best interest to meet with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

Factual History and Procedural Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action seeking damages for injuries sustained during a surgical procedure, claiming that the defendants caused permanent vocal cord damage following a parathyroidectomy.

It is alleged that the plaintiff underwent surgery to address a diagnosed endocrine condition and that the procedure was performed by a primary surgeon with assistance from a resident physician. The plaintiff later developed persistent hoarseness and was ultimately diagnosed with vocal cord paralysis, which did not resolve. Continue Reading ›

New York Discusses Discovery in Medical Malpractice Litigation

Published on: March 11, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Discovery disputes frequently shape the trajectory of medical malpractice litigation, especially when plaintiffs seek internal hospital records to support claims of negligent care. Courts must balance a plaintiff’s right to obtain relevant evidence against statutory protections designed to promote candid internal review of physicians. A recent New York decision demonstrates the strength of these protections, particularly with respect to credentialing and peer review materials. If you believe medical negligence contributed to a serious injury, it is in your best interest to consult with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney, who can help you understand what evidence may be available to support your claim.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice action asserting that the defendant physician provided negligent care over the course of nearly a year in connection with a vascular condition, resulting in significant neurological injuries, and also asserted a lack of informed consent and derivative claims.

It is alleged that during discovery, the plaintiffs sought production of the physician’s credentialing materials, including applications for hospital privileges, supporting documentation, and communications related to the physician’s departure from employment at the hospital system. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Examines Jurisdiction in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: March 6, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Jurisdictional disputes often play a decisive role in medical malpractice litigation, particularly when federal and state claims intersect. When a case shifts between courts, the procedural consequences can significantly affect how and where a plaintiff may pursue relief. A recent New York decision illustrates how the dismissal of federal claims can eliminate the basis for federal jurisdiction, requiring remand to state court. If you were harmed by negligent navigation, you should consider speaking with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to understand your rights and recovery options.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action in state court against a hospital and two physicians, asserting failures to monitor and treat a medical condition that ultimately led to a serious cancer diagnosis, along with claims for lack of informed consent and negligent hiring and supervision.

It is alleged that the federal government later certified that the physician defendants were acting within the scope of their employment as federal employees, thereby bringing the claims against them within the scope of the Federal Tort Claims Act and permitting removal of the action to federal court.

New York Court Discusses Competency in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: February 12, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Questions surrounding a litigant’s mental capacity can significantly affect how a civil case proceeds, particularly in complex medical malpractice disputes. Courts must balance the protection of potentially impaired parties with the preservation of their autonomy and due process rights. A recent New York ruling highlights how courts approach requests for competency determinations, appointment of a representative, and attorney disqualification in ongoing litigation. If you or a loved one were harmed by incompetent medical care, it is wise to consider speaking with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to understand how these issues may affect your or your loved one’s claims.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff sought remote medical treatment from a physician affiliated with the defendant healthcare entity and received overlapping prescriptions for weight loss medications over an extended period, resulting in neurological symptoms and alleged permanent injuries. The plaintiff later entered into a separation agreement with their employer, which included provisions releasing certain claims.

Reportedly, the plaintiffs commenced an action asserting claims for medical malpractice, lack of informed consent, negligent hiring, and loss of consortium. The defendant moved for summary judgment based on contractual release provisions, while the plaintiffs opposed the motion by arguing that the plaintiff lacked the mental capacity to enter into the agreement, leading the court to deny summary judgment and allow the claims to proceed. Continue Reading ›

Court Explains the Standard for Summary Judgment in New York Medical Malpractice Actions

Published on: February 7, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Serious surgical complications often raise a critical question in medical malpractice litigation: was the outcome an unavoidable risk or the result of preventable error? When patients suffer unexpected injuries following complex procedures, courts must closely examine competing medical explanations to determine whether a case should proceed to trial. A recent New York decision highlights how sharply conflicting expert opinions can shape that determination, particularly where the alleged injury appears severe and atypical. If you or a loved one experienced unexpected complications after surgery, you should consider speaking with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to evaluate whether negligent care may have played a role.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent cancer treatment followed by a complex colorectal surgery performed at a hospital operated by the defendant, after which she began experiencing significant complications, including urinary symptoms and pelvic discomfort.

It is alleged that subsequent examinations revealed that surgical staples had been placed through both the anterior and posterior vaginal walls, effectively obstructing the vaginal canal and contributing to additional complications requiring corrective procedures.

Reportedly, further diagnostic testing identified a fistula between the vagina and colorectal anastomosis, and the plaintiff later underwent extensive reconstructive surgery to repair the damage and address ongoing symptoms.

It is reported that the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action asserting departures from accepted surgical practice and lack of informed consent, while also asserting derivative claims related to the injuries sustained.

Allegedly, the defendants moved for summary judgment, submitting expert affirmations asserting that the procedure was properly performed, that the complications were known risks of the surgery and prior radiation treatment, and that the plaintiff’s symptoms were unrelated to any alleged surgical error.

The Standard for Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Actions

The court began its analysis by outlining the governing standard for summary judgment in medical malpractice actions. A defendant must establish either that there was no departure from accepted medical practice or that any alleged departure was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. This burden is typically satisfied through detailed expert affirmations grounded in the medical record.

The defendants submitted expert opinions asserting that the surgery was medically necessary and performed within accepted standards, emphasizing the use of proper visualization techniques and surgical precautions. Their experts further contended that the complications identified were recognized risks of colorectal surgery, particularly in patients who had undergone radiation therapy, and that alternative causes explained the plaintiff’s urinary and pelvic symptoms.

The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to raise triable issues of fact. The plaintiff met this burden by submitting multiple expert affirmations that directly challenged both the standard of care and causation. The plaintiff’s experts opined that the surgical outcome was not a recognized risk but rather the result of improper technique, specifically the failure to properly identify and maintain separation between anatomical structures during the procedure.

The court gave significant weight to the plaintiff’s experts’ detailed explanations of surgical protocols, including the necessity of clear visualization and protective measures to avoid incorporating adjacent structures into a staple line. The experts further emphasized that the extent of the injury, including complete stapling of the vaginal canal, could not occur in the absence of negligence.

On the issue of causation, the plaintiff’s experts rebutted the defense position that radiation therapy caused the symptoms. They explained that the timing and nature of the injuries were more consistent with intraoperative error and that the structural damage caused by the staples directly resulted in the plaintiff’s complications and need for additional surgery.

Because both sides presented competent and conflicting expert opinions, the court concluded that credibility determinations were required, which are reserved for a jury. As a result, the court denied summary judgment on the medical malpractice claims.

Consult with Skilled Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorneys

If you or a loved one experienced complications following surgery, you should consult an attorney regarding your options. The skilled Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can assess your case and advise you of your potential claims. Call 833-200-2000 or visit us online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.