Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
Surgery may be an accepted treatment for a condition yet still inappropriate at a particular stage, and performing the procedure may constitute medical malpractice. This was discussed in a recent New York decision, in which a patient challenged both the timing of a corrective procedure and the information he received before consenting. The court ultimately held that the defendants had not eliminated factual questions about the surgery, allowing the case to continue. If you are concerned that a procedure was performed too soon, you should speak with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney about the treatment record and your options.
Facts and Procedural History
Allegedly, the plaintiff consulted a urologist in September 2018 for a condition that causes penile curvature. The physician performed plication surgery in May 2019. The plaintiff later questioned whether the disease was still progressing when the operation occurred. According to his claim, performing the procedure during that acute phase fell below accepted medical practice. He also challenged the consent process, maintaining that the defendants had not adequately addressed the risks and alternatives associated with surgery at that point in the disease.
Reportedly, the plaintiff sued the physician and his medical practice for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent. His claims also concerned other treatment, including therapy after surgery. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the entire complaint. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. The court reviewed the defendants’ proof separately as to the plication procedure and the remaining treatment rather than treating every allegation as one undifferentiated claim.
Grounds for Denying Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Cases
A medical malpractice defendant seeking summary judgment must first show either that the care met accepted medical standards or that any departure did not cause the claimed injury. That initial burden requires the defendant to address the specific departures identified in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars. Only after the defense meets it must the plaintiff produce evidence of a factual dispute on the elements the defense established.
Here, the defendants submitted an expert affirmation and deposition testimony from the physician and patient. The court concluded that those materials did not resolve whether the plaintiff’s disease remained in an acute phase when the surgery occurred. That question mattered because the record indicated that plication surgery would not be recommended during such a phase. The submissions therefore did not establish either proper care or the absence of a causal connection to the claimed harm. Because the defendants failed at the first step, the court did not need to rely on the strength of the plaintiff’s opposition to preserve this part of the case.
For the consent claim, the court conducted a separate inquiry. New York law asks whether the provider disclosed material risks and alternatives that a reasonable practitioner would disclose, whether a reasonably prudent patient would have declined treatment with full information, and whether the disclosure failure caused injury. A signed form alone does not automatically resolve those issues. Here, the defendants’ materials did not establish that the patient received sufficient advice about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of operating while the disease might still be active.
The court modified the order to reinstate the malpractice and informed consent claims based on the May 2019 surgery. It otherwise affirmed the dismissal.
Speak with a Skilled Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney
Questions about surgical timing and informed consent often require a close review of the medical timeline, the advice given before treatment, and expert opinions. If you believe a procedure caused avoidable harm, you should talk to an attorney. The skilled Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can evaluate your circumstances and advise you of your options. Call 833-200-2000 or use the firm’s online contact form to request a free, confidential consultation. The firm serves Rochester and communities throughout Upstate New York.
