Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
Medical malpractice and treatment-related injury claims frequently involve disputes not only about the standard of care but also about where they should be litigated. When a plaintiff sues both medical or treatment providers and out-of-state manufacturers, defendants often attempt to shift the case into federal court by arguing that local providers were improperly included. This was demonstrated in a recent New York decision in which the court examined whether in-state treatment providers were fraudulently joined in a case involving injuries arising from a cosmetic medical procedure. If you believe you were harmed by negligent medical care, you should consider consulting with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to understand how jurisdictional challenges may affect your claims.
Facts and Procedural History
It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a cosmetic fat-reduction procedure involving the application of a medical device that freezes fat cells beneath the skin. The procedure was performed at a facility operated by or affiliated with local treatment providers in New York. Following the procedure, the plaintiff sustained serious physical injuries, including burns and lasting bodily damage, which caused pain, required medical care, and interfered with ordinary activities.
Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced an action in New York state court asserting multiple causes of action arising from the procedure. The claims included theories of product liability, negligence, and related failures arising from the performance of the treatment. The plaintiff named both the manufacturers of the medical device and the local treatment providers as defendants, alleging that the injuries resulted from the manner in which the procedure was performed and from defects or dangers associated with the device used during treatment.
Reportedly, the out-of-state manufacturer defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, despite the presence of New York-based treatment providers as defendants. The removing defendants acknowledged that diversity would ordinarily be defeated by the inclusion of those in-state defendants but argued that the plaintiff had fraudulently joined them solely to prevent removal. According to the removing defendants, New York law barred recovery against the local providers because they did not manufacture or sell the device.
It is alleged that the federal court ordered additional briefing to address whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction before reaching any substantive motions. The jurisdictional dispute centered on whether there was any plausible basis under New York law for holding the local treatment providers liable for injuries arising from the procedure.
Jurisdiction Over Medical Malpractice Claims
The court began its analysis by emphasizing that federal courts must strictly construe removal statutes and that doubts regarding jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remand. Under the doctrine of fraudulent joinder, the removing defendants bore a heavy burden to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that there was no possibility the plaintiff could state any viable claim against the in-state treatment providers under New York law.
In evaluating that issue, the court focused on the distinction between product liability claims and negligence or medical malpractice claims. The court explained that while New York law generally precludes product liability claims against healthcare providers for devices manufactured by others, it does not foreclose claims based on negligent treatment, improper use of medical devices, or departures from accepted standards of care. The court noted that whether a defendant qualifies as a healthcare provider or as a provider of cosmetic or aesthetic services can involve factual determinations that are not appropriate for resolution at the jurisdictional stage.
The court further observed that even where a complaint emphasizes product-based theories, the presence of allegations suggesting negligent performance of a medical or treatment procedure may support a viable malpractice or negligence claim. At the removal stage, the court’s role was not to assess the ultimate strength of those claims, but only to determine whether any reasonable possibility of recovery existed under state law.
Because the pleadings left open the possibility that the local defendants could be liable for negligent treatment or medical malpractice related to the procedure, the court concluded that fraudulent joinder had not been established. As a result, complete diversity was absent, and the federal court determined it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The case was therefore remanded to New York state court for further proceedings.
Consult with Skilled Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorneys
Medical malpractice claims involving cosmetic procedures and emerging medical technologies often raise complex questions about standards of care, provider responsibility, and proper forum. To learn how these legal principles may apply to your situation, you should contact an attorney. The experienced Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers represent victims of medical negligence throughout Rochester, Syracuse, and New York State. You can contact us at 833-200-2000 or visit us online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.
