Failure to Diagnose

Published on: July 24, 2018

Federal Jury Awards Over $18 Million to HIV Patient in Medical Malpractice Claim

hiv Diagnosing HIV is in its early stages is critical to ensure the disease does not progress. If you or a loved one has been injured due to a missed or delayed HIV diagnosis, you may be entitled to compensation for your harm. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, we are dedicated to holding medical professionals accountable for their negligent conduct.

Last month, a federal jury in Boston awarded $18.4 million in damages to a man who claimed that two of his former doctors did not test him for HIV, despite risk factors that made him more vulnerable to contracting the disease. S.S., age 48, argued that being gay and previously working as a paramedic made him particularly vulnerable to the disease.

Despite S.S.’s explicit consent to an HIV test in 2007, his treating physicians failed to perform one. Approximately three years later, another physician ordered the test and the results came back positive. By that time, the man’s disease had progressed to AIDs, resulting in him suffering brain damage and ending his career prematurely.

Published on: June 22, 2018

Malpractice Caps Have Led to Doctors Ordering Fewer Invasive Tests

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

heart
Heart attacks are the leading cause of death in the United States. About one in every five deaths take place due to a heart attack. Sadly, many of these deaths occur because a doctor failed to diagnose or treat the condition properly. This is especially true in emergency room settings, where it is extremely busy and medical professionals are juggling many different things at the same time. If you or a loved one has suffered a heart attack due to a medical professional’s negligence, you may be entitled to compensation for your harm. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, our seasoned Rochester medical malpractice attorneys understand this area of law and can apply our knowledge to use in your case.

A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that after malpractice caps were implemented, doctors ordered fewer invasive tests to diagnose heart attacks. A research team from George Washington University highlighted how in nine states that adopted medical malpractice caps, doctors ordered 24 percent fewer angiographies as a first test than doctors in 20 states without such caps. Doctors in states that adopted a damages cap also ordered 21 percent fewer coronary angiographies as a follow up and 23 percent fewer coronary procedures, such as stenting, which some researchers believe is an overused procedure.

Doctors often report to practicing defensive medicine to reduce malpractice risk. In other words, doctors often conduct tests simply to reduce the risk of being sued, rather than because they genuinely believe those tests are necessary. The study is important because it shows that reducing malpractice risk is associated with clinical decisions involving coronary artery disease testing and treatment. While overall testing rates did not change, the kind of tests that doctors ordered did change. In sum, doctors tolerate greater clinical uncertainty in coronary artery disease testing and treatment if they face lower malpractice risks.

Published on: April 13, 2018

Malpractice Involving Asthma Diagnosis or Treatment

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

asthma If you or someone close to you has suffered harm due to malpractice relating to asthma, we can help. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, our Rochester medical malpractice attorneys understand how to navigate these complex cases. Whether your injury was a result of a misdiagnosis or inadequate treatment, we will make every effort to help you secure the compensation you need to deal with your harm.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 18.4 million people with asthma in the United States in 2015. This means that 7.6 percent of all adults and 8.4 percent of all children in the country had the condition. Asthma is a condition in which a person’s airways narrow and swell and produce extra mucus. This can hinder a person’s ability to breathe and trigger coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath. Shortness of breath can lead to life-threatening asthma attacks. You should know that asthma is a common inflammatory lung disease, and while it cannot be cured, it can be treated.

Unfortunately, asthma misdiagnosis or poor treatment often cause injuries to patients in New York and across the United States. An asthma misdiagnosis can happen in one of two ways: diagnosing a patient with the condition when he or she does not have it, or failing to diagnose a patient with asthma when he or she does have it. The consequences of a misdiagnosis can be very serious. Patients may undergo treatment for a condition they do not have and end up going through unnecessary treatment and needlessly suffering adverse side effects. When asthma is not properly diagnosed, the patient fails to treat the symptoms, and his or her condition could get worse.

Published on: November 28, 2017

New York Appeals Court Rules that Psychiatric Malpractice Claim Cannot be Dismissed Because of Procedural Technicality

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Anxiety New York medical malpractice lawsuits are subject to the same civil procedure rules as other litigation in New York courts. These rules guide all phases of the litigation and are comprised of deadlines, requests, and filings made to the court. Sometimes lawsuits are dismissed because of procedural lapses, instead of being dismissed on the merits of the malpractice claim. In one case, the New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department ruled on whether the plaintiff’s lawsuit should have been dismissed pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, Rule 3404.

The facts of the case are as follows. A patient was admitted to a Niagara Falls hospital’s psychiatric wing. While under the psychiatrist’s care, the patient leaped from the top of the hospital’s roof and suffered serious injuries. The guardian of the patient filed a psychiatric malpractice lawsuit against the patient’s psychiatrist. The pre-trial litigation phase of discovery commenced, and the plaintiff filed a note of issue. In response, the defendant moved to vacate the note of issue because discovery was incomplete, the defendant alleged. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion and ordered additional discovery.

The plaintiff did not file a new note of issue for another year. Thus, the defendant moved to dismiss the psychiatric malpractice claim pursuant to Rule 3404. This procedural rule allows for the judicial dismissal of inactive cases under certain prescribed situations. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that 3404 did not apply when the note of issue has been vacated. The court denied the defendant’s motion and noted that this very issue was subject to inconsistent rulings at the trial court level.