Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
Successful surgery begins long before the first incision. Physicians must evaluate available medical records, review appropriate diagnostic imaging, and develop a surgical plan that accounts for a patient’s individual anatomy. When a surgeon proceeds without obtaining information that could materially affect the procedure, serious complications may result, giving rise to a medical malpractice claim. A recent New York decision illustrates how disputes over preoperative planning and informed consent can prevent dismissal of a malpractice action before trial. If you suffered injuries because of negligent surgical planning or treatment, it is advisable to meet with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to discuss your rights.
Fact of the Case and Procedural Posture
Allegedly, the defendant surgeon performed gallbladder removal surgery on the plaintiff. During the operation, however, the surgeon was unable to locate the plaintiff’s gallbladder. A subsequent MRI revealed that the plaintiff did not have a gallbladder. The plaintiff thereafter commenced a medical malpractice action alleging, among other things, that the surgeon departed from accepted medical practice by failing to obtain preoperative imaging, including a CT scan or MRI, that would have disclosed the absence of the gallbladder before surgery. The plaintiff also asserted a claim based on lack of informed consent. Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of both causes of action, and the trial court denied the motion. The defendant appealed.
Duties Imposed on Surgeons
On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment. The court first reviewed the standards governing medical malpractice actions, explaining that a physician seeking summary judgment must establish either that there was no departure from accepted medical practice or that any alleged departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s injuries.
Once the defendant satisfies that burden, the plaintiff must present competent expert evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine factual dispute. The court reiterated that summary judgment generally is inappropriate where qualified medical experts offer conflicting opinions supported by the medical record because those credibility determinations belong to the jury.
Applying those principles, the court concluded that although the defendant initially established a prima facie entitlement to judgment through expert testimony supporting the appropriateness of the surgical care, the plaintiff successfully raised triable issues of fact.
The plaintiff’s expert specifically opined that accepted medical practice required the surgeon to review the available medical records and confirm that the plaintiff actually had a gallbladder through appropriate preoperative CT or MRI imaging before undertaking gallbladder removal surgery. According to the plaintiff’s expert, the failure to perform those steps constituted a departure from accepted surgical practice and directly caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
Because the parties’ experts reached conflicting conclusions regarding both the standard of care and causation, the appellate court held that those issues could not be resolved as a matter of law and instead required determination by a jury.
Speak with an Assertive Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney
If you were injured by a negligently performed surgery, you have the right to pursue a medical malpractice claim, and you should speak to an attorney. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, our assertive Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys understand how to evaluate complex surgical negligence claims, and if we represent you, we will advocate zealously on your behalf. Contact our office through our online form or call 833-200-2000 today to schedule a confidential and free consultation.
