Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
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.
Reportedly, the defendants moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint, arguing that the surgery was properly performed, that all appropriate precautions were taken to avoid nerve injury, and that the complication was a known risk of the procedure.
It is reported that the plaintiff opposed the motion, asserting that the defendants departed from accepted medical standards during the surgery and that these departures caused the nerve injury. The court considered the parties’ submissions, including expert affirmations, to determine whether summary judgment was appropriate.
Demonstrating Deviations From the Standard of Care
The court began by outlining the governing standards for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action. 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 showing must be supported by competent medical evidence, typically in the form of a detailed expert opinion.
The defendants satisfied their initial burden by presenting expert testimony affirming that the surgery was appropriately performed and that nerve-monitoring techniques were used to reduce the risk of injury. The expert also emphasized that vocal cord paralysis is a recognized complication that can occur even in the absence of negligence. Based on this showing, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact.
The plaintiff met this burden by submitting a competing expert opinion that directly challenged the adequacy of the surgical technique and intraoperative precautions. The plaintiff’s expert identified several alleged departures from accepted practice, including failure to identify the recurrent laryngeal nerve during the procedure properly, improper use of nerve-monitoring technology, and deficiencies in anesthesia administration that could interfere with nerve detection.
The court found these assertions sufficient to create factual disputes requiring resolution by a jury. The plaintiff’s expert explained that proper visualization and continuous monitoring of the nerve are essential safeguards during this type of surgery, and that failing to employ them could increase the risk of undetected injury. The expert further opined that the manner in which anesthesia was administered may have compromised the reliability of monitoring equipment, potentially masking warning signs of nerve damage.
The court also addressed the role of the assisting resident, noting that, while supervised medical personnel are generally not liable absent independent negligence, issues of fact existed as to whether the resident’s actions in administering anesthesia constituted a separate departure from accepted practice. Because the evidence suggested the resident may have exercised independent judgment in that aspect of care, summary judgment was not appropriate.
Given the conflicting expert opinions on both standard of care and causation, the court concluded that the issues could not be resolved as a matter of law. Questions of credibility and the weight of expert testimony are reserved for the trier of fact. Accordingly, the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the core malpractice claims, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Protect Your Interests with a Skilled Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney
Surgical errors and preventable complications can have devastating and permanent consequences, particularly when critical structures like nerves are involved. If you were injured by a negligently performed surgical procedure, it is smart to talk to an attorney about how you can protect your interests. The skilled Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers have the experience and resources to evaluate complex cases, and if we represent you, we will advocate aggressively on your behalf. You can reach us via our online form or call us at 833-200-2000 to schedule a free, confidential consultation.
