When patients receive test results from their medical providers, they rely on clear communication to determine whether follow-up care is necessary. A recent New York decision examines how unclear voicemail communication, missing evidence, and disputed expert testimony shaped a jury’s verdict in a medical malpractice case involving an allegedly melanoma diagnosis. If you believe a delayed diagnosis or inadequate communication contributed to a serious medical condition, speaking with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney can help you understand your legal rights.
Facts and Procedural Background
It is reported that the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice action claiming that the defendants failed to timely diagnose the plaintiff with melanoma. In 2018, the plaintiff underwent a biopsy of a lesion on his left shin, which a pathology review identified as benign. The defendant’s office left a voicemail advising that there was nothing concerning in the biopsy result and that no further intervention was necessary. The precise language of the voicemail is unknown because, according to the record, the plaintiff did not retain the cell phone that contained the message.
Allegedly, after receiving the voicemail, the plaintiff did not return for a follow-up appointment and did not seek further evaluation from the defendants. It is reported that in 2019, while being treated by a different medical practice, the plaintiff underwent a biopsy of another lesion located on his left shin. That biopsy revealed a malignant melanoma. The plaintiffs attributed the delayed cancer diagnosis to the defendants’ failure to identify or properly communicate the nature of the earlier lesion.
It is reported that the matter proceeded to a jury trial where the defendants prevailed. The jury found the defendants not liable for the alleged malpractice. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging several of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings and asserting that those errors deprived them of a fair trial.
Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Cases
On appeal, the plaintiffs first argued that the trial court erred in permitting the defendants’ expert to testify that the lesion identified as melanoma in 2019 was pathologically different from the lesion biopsied in 2018. The plaintiffs asserted that this theory constituted an undisclosed expert opinion and should have been precluded. The court rejected this argument, noting that the defendants’ expert disclosure specifically stated that the expert would opine on the pathological analysis of the biopsy slides and would address differences between the 2018 and 2019 lesions. The disclosure, the court found, adequately encompassed the expert’s trial testimony.
The plaintiffs next contended that the trial court should have precluded the defendants’ expert from testifying about the locations of the lesions. The court disagreed, finding no error because testimony about the physical location did not require specialized medical expertise and therefore did not trigger an obligation to disclose it in advance.
The plaintiffs also challenged the trial court’s refusal to permit them to introduce certain rebuttal testimony and testimony from a former employee of the defendants. The court held that the trial court acted within its discretion, explaining that rebuttal evidence must be limited to contradicting affirmative proof offered by the opposing party and that the plaintiffs had not met that standard. The court further concluded that the plaintiffs’ failure to identify the former employee as a witness before trial justified preclusion because allowing the testimony would have unfairly surprised the defendants.
Additionally, the plaintiffs objected to the requirement that they disclose the identity of their expert before the expert testified. The court determined that while expert names may be withheld prior to trial, disclosure is permissible and appropriate shortly before the witness takes the stand.
Talk to a Skilled Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney
If you were harmed by a failure to diagnose, a delayed diagnosis, or a miscommunication of critical medical information, it is smart to talk to an attorney about your options. The skilled Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers are prepared to help. We represent clients throughout Syracuse, Rochester, and across New York State in complex diagnostic error and malpractice cases. Contact us at 833-200-2000 or visit us online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.