Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
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.
It is reported that the court granted only limited portions of certain motions, dismissing informed consent claims and a narrow group of allegations against one defendant. The court otherwise denied summary judgment for most defendants after determining that genuine factual disputes required resolution by a jury.
Conflicting Expert Opinions Create Questions for the Jury
The court began by reviewing the standards governing summary judgment in New York medical malpractice actions. A defendant seeking dismissal must first demonstrate either that there was no departure from accepted medical practice or that any alleged departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s injuries. Once that initial burden is satisfied, the plaintiff must present competent expert evidence establishing a factual dispute that warrants a trial.
Although several defendants submitted detailed expert affirmations supporting the care they provided, the plaintiff responded with experts who presented opposing opinions. The plaintiff’s obstetrical expert disputed whether the patient’s symptoms were properly evaluated, questioned whether additional testing should have been performed sooner, challenged the adequacy of efforts to notify the plaintiff about critically abnormal laboratory findings, and opined that different treatment decisions could have prevented further complications.
The plaintiff also presented expert testimony criticizing aspects of the emergency airway management that followed the plaintiff’s hospitalization. Those experts disputed whether physicians acted promptly, whether appropriate monitoring occurred during the emergency procedure, and whether delays in treatment contributed to the plaintiff’s neurological injuries.
Rather than deciding which experts were more persuasive, the court emphasized that summary judgment is generally inappropriate when qualified experts present competing opinions supported by the medical record. The court explained that credibility determinations and the weighing of conflicting expert testimony are functions reserved for a jury. Because both sides submitted admissible expert opinions supported by evidence, material questions remained regarding the applicable standard of care, whether healthcare providers deviated from that standard, and whether those alleged departures caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
As a result, the court concluded that most of the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims should proceed to trial, allowing a jury to evaluate the competing medical opinions and determine liability.
Meet with a Trusted Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney Today
If you or someone you love suffered serious injuries because of substandard medical care, you should meet with an attorney to discuss your legal options. The trusted Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers have the experience and resources needed to help you seek the compensation you deserve. Complete our online contact form or call 833-200-2000 today to schedule a free, confidential consultation.
