Hospital Malpractice

Published on: May 22, 2019

New York Court Discusses Medical Malpractice Cases Involving Multiple Defendants

It is not uncommon for a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case to allege that both the doctor that provided his or her treatment and the hospital where the treatment was rendered are liable for any harm caused by the treatment. There are numerous factual disputes that can arise in any medical malpractice case, and cases with more than one defendant are typically more complicated than cases with a single defendant. Recently, a New York appellate court discussed the standards for precluded summary judgment in a medical malpractice case involving multiple defendants. If you sustained injuries due to the medical malpractice of a doctor and hospital you should speak with a skilled Rochester hospital malpractice attorney to discuss your case and what evidence you may need to hold both the doctor who treated you and the hospital in which you were treated liable for your harm.

Facts Regarding the Decedent’s Harm

Reportedly, the plaintiff’s decedent was injured in a car accident, after which he was transported to a hospital. He was then discharged to the defendant medical center for rehabilitation. The decedent ultimately died from deep venous thrombosis and a pulmonary embolism. Following his death, the plaintiff sued the defendant medical center, alleging its negligence caused the decedent’s death.

It is alleged that the defendant medical center subsequently filed a third-party complaint against the defendant hospital who contracted with the medical center to provide doctors to administer care and the defendant doctor who treated the decedent while he was at the defendant medical center. The defendant doctor and defendant hospital filed motions for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The plaintiff and defendant medical center subsequently appealed.
Continue reading

Published on: March 11, 2019

New York Court Discusses Factors Permitting Late Notice of a Medical Malpractice Claim Against a Public Corporation

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

The statute of limitations for pursuing a medical malpractice claim in New York is two years and six months from the date of harm. In cases where the medical care provider is a public corporation, however, different notice requirements apply.

The appellate division of the Supreme Court of New York recently discussed the circumstances in which a plaintiff will be permitted to file late notice of a claim against a public corporation. If you suffered injuries or an illness because of inadequate medical care, you should speak with a proficient Rochester medical malpractice attorney to discuss the circumstances surrounding your harm and your options for pursuing compensation.

Procedural Background

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a petition for leave to file a late notice of a claim averring medical malpractice against the defendant, a public corporation. The trial court denied the petition and the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the trial court ruling was affirmed.

Published on: February 25, 2019

New York Court Explains Continuous Treatment Doctrine in Medical Malpractice Cases

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

New York medical malpractice lawsuits, like all civil claims, are governed by statutes of limitations. As such, if a plaintiff does not pursue his or her claim within the time limitations set forth under the law, he or she waives the right to recover. In some cases, however, the statute of limitations may be tolled by the continuous treatment doctrine, which allows the injured party additional time to pursue his or her claim.

The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, recently explained the continuous treatment doctrine, in a case in which it ruled that the plaintiff’s claim was not barred by the statute of limitations due to the application of the doctrine. If you were injured by substandard medical care, you should contact an experienced Rochester medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible to discuss your options for seeking damages.

Factual and Procedural Background

Reportedly, the plaintiff underwent hip replacement surgery at the defendant hospital on July 9, 2008. She filed a Complaint alleging medical malpractice against the defendant hospital and defendant surgeon on December 16, 2013. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the Complaint was filed more than two years and six months after the plaintiff ceased treatment with the defendants and that therefore, the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that she continued treating until November 26, 2011, which was less than two and a half years before she filed her lawsuit. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion, after which the plaintiff appealed.

Published on: February 4, 2019

New York Court Find Triable Issue of Fact in A Medical Malpractice Case

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In a medical malpractice lawsuit, both the plaintiff and defendant have burdens of proof that they must meet to win the case. If a defendant meets the burden of proof of producing evidence, that on its face shows no substandard treatment, the case may be dismissed unless the plaintiff rebuts the defendant’s evidence by showing there is a triable issue of fact.

This was illustrated in a recent New York appellate court case in which the court overturned a trial court ruling granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, where the appellate court found there was a triable issue. If you suffered harm due to insufficient care or monitoring in a hospital you, should meet with an experienced Rochester medical malpractice attorney to determine whether you may be able to seek damages from the hospital and any doctor that treated you.

Factual Allegations

Reportedly, the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital with stroke symptoms. At some point after he was admitted, he fell out of his hospital bed. The plaintiff and his wife subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant hospital and the defendant physician that treated him at the hospital. Following discovery, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The plaintiffs then appealed.

Published on: January 3, 2019

New York Court Explains Shifting Burden of Proof in Medical Malpractice Cases

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In the New York courts, a plaintiff seeking the recovery of damages in a medical malpractice case must set forth certain evidence regarding the treating medical provider’s inappropriate care, or his or her claim will be dismissed. If the plaintiff meets this burden, the burden then shifts to the treating provider to show the care was appropriate.

As recently illustrated in a case decided by the appellate division of the Supreme Court of New York, plaintiffs pursuing medical malpractice actions will be permitted to proceed on their claim unless the defendant medical providers can irrefutably show no breach of the standard of care. If you sustained harm due to inadequate or negligent medical care, you should meet with an experienced Rochester medical malpractice attorney to review the facts of your case and whether you may be able to recover compensation from the medical provider that caused your impairment.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Treatment

Reportedly, the plaintiff gave birth in August 2012 at the defendant hospital. Forceps were used by the first physician during the delivery. Following the delivery, the first physician left the delivery room. The plaintiff then underwent an episiotomy repair that was performed by a second physician. The plaintiff subsequently filed an action against both physicians and the hospital for medical malpractice related to complications arising from the episiotomy and its repair. At the close of discovery, the first physician filed a motion to have the claims against him dismissed. The court denied the motion, after which the first physician appealed.

Published on: August 31, 2018

Woman Sues Hospital for Performing Emergency C-Section without Anesthesia

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

When you go to the hospital, you expect to receive competent care. When that does not happen, the consequences for the patient can be devastating. If you believe that you were harmed by a medical professional’s negligence in a hospital setting, you need to reach out to a seasoned Rochester medical malpractice attorney for help. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, we are committed to protecting the rights of New York malpractice victims throughout the entire legal process.A California woman who underwent an emergency C-section last year is now suing the hospital where it took place. In the lawsuit, the woman alleges that the anesthesiologist failed to respond to being paged, so the emergency operation went ahead without him.

The 26-year-old woman was 41 weeks pregnant when she was admitted to the hospital to have labor induced. After hours of labor, the obstetrician made the decision to call for an emergency C-section after the fetal heartbeat could no longer be detected. When the anesthesiologist could not be located, the doctor proceeded with the C-section, allegedly causing extreme pain and a burning sensation to the patient. According to the lawsuit, which names the hospital, surgeon, and anesthesiologist as defendants, the patient was crying and screaming at the top of her lungs because she could feel everything that was taking place.

Published on: July 3, 2018

Girl Wins $135M in Medical Malpractice Case

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Individuals rely on medical professionals to help them to maintain proper health. When doctors make an error in judgment, it is your right to seek compensation. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, our highly skilled Rochester medical malpractice attorneys will analyze the facts of your case and provide you with an honest assessment of your claim. We understand how devastating medical injuries can be, which is why we will handle your case with the utmost compassion.

A 17-year-old Michigan girl recently won $135 million in a medical malpractice claim against Detroit Medical Center (DMC). F.G., who was ten years old at the time, received improper medical treatment that left her with permanent weakness in her arms and legs and loss of bowel and bladder control.

The facts at trial showed that DMC doctors who had operated on F.G.’s spine for a simple scoliosis surgery disregarded immediate signs and symptoms that showed her spinal cord was being compressed and injured by hardware place in her spine by the physicians. Instead of remedying the compression, the doctor went on holiday twice and left her alone lying paralyzed and incontinent of bowel and bladder for 10 days. At this time, another doctor identified the problem and removed the hardware from the girl’s body. However, it was too late, and the patient was left with partial paralysis of her four extremities and permanent loss of bowel and bladder control.

Published on: May 2, 2018

Stage 4 Bedsores Caused by Malpractice in Rochester

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

If you or someone close to you has suffered bedsores due to the negligence of a nursing home or hospital, you may be entitled to compensation through a medical malpractice claim. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, our Rochester medical malpractice attorneys can guide you through the legal process and help you resolve your case in an efficient and effective manner.

A bedsore is a painful, often reddened area of degenerating, ulcerated skin caused by pressure from lying in bed in one position for a prolonged period of time. Stage 1 bedsores may involve redness of the skin, bruising, or discoloration. Stage 2 bedsores involve broken skin where the top skin layers die off, creating a shallow crater and risk of infection. Stage 3 bedsores affect the deeper tissue under the skin, including the fat layer. They appear to be like craters and may have pus-like drainage. Stage 4 bedsores are the most serious and affect the skin and layers of tissue down to the muscle and bone. At this stage, serious bruising and drainage may be present.

Unfortunately, bedsores are more common than you may think. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 2.5 million individuals suffered from bedsores in 2011. The CDC also estimates that bedsores affect the health of nearly 1 million adults throughout the country each year. The mortality rate among people with stage 4 bedsores is high, with almost 70 percent of people diagnosed with stage 4 bedsores dying within 180 days.

Published on: February 20, 2018

Feeding Tube Errors in Rochester and Throughout New York

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

When a patient is seriously ill, they may not be able to eat food. In such cases, feeding tubes may be needed to provide sustenance to the patient. If you or someone close to you has been injured due to a feeding tube error, you may be entitled to compensation for your harm. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, our skilled Rochester medical malpractice attorneys can meticulously analyze the facts of your case and help you determine your legal options.

Every day, medical instruments are used to help medical professionals in completing their jobs properly. Feeding tubes are used for patients who struggle with eating and suffer from conditions that limit their ability to chew, swallow, and digest food. Although the placement of feeding tubes is a relatively simply surgical procedure, as suggested by the Mayo Clinic, it should only be used for patients who have no other option when it comes to receiving nutrients. Patients in long-term facilities and nursing homes routinely use tube feeding as a way to feed patients. Many hospitalized patients in the United States also receive tube feeding. According to the National Center for Health Statistics’ latest figures, patients received tube feeding in approximately 245,000 hospital stays.

Feeding tube malpractice can occur in a variety of ways, including but not limited to:

Improper insertion or placement of a feeding tube;
Improper sanitation of the feeding tube;
Failure to properly clean the incision site regularly;
Medical staff not being trained to handle the feeding tube; or
Failure to monitor the tube for any changes.

Published on: January 25, 2018

Premature Discharge from Hospitals in Rochester and Across New York

by DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

An early discharge from a hospital can cause as much harm as any other medical mistake. If you or someone close to you has been injured due to a premature discharge from a hospital, it is imperative to reach out to a skilled Rochester hospital malpractice attorney who can help. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, we are committed to helping our clients pursue the compensation they need to move on with their life. Malpractice claims can be complicated and stressful, but we want to make the process as seamless as possible for you.

When a patient is discharged from a hospital too soon, he or she is put at risk to manage problems at home that should have been managed at the hospital. In some cases, this is simply not possible, and the patient ends up suffering serious harm and needs to be readmitted to the hospital. Patients are rushed out of hospitals for a number of reasons. Often, hospitals are overcrowded, and busy staff is trying to get patients home as soon as possible. In other cases, sending a patient home too early is simply an error in judgment. Lastly, the sad reality is that hospitals are a business, and they often try to maximize profits by seeing as many patients as possible.

Not every error by a medical professional will rise to the level of medical malpractice. In other words, not every patient who was released too early will have a malpractice claim. Instead, malpractice takes place when a medical professional causes harm by failing to adhere to the standard of care that another medical professional would have used in the same or similar circumstances. Essentially, the medical professional’s conduct must have deviated from what a reasonably prudent medical professional in the same specialty would have done in the same situation, and that deviation must have been a direct cause of injury to the patient. It is important to note that the patient must also prove that the doctor’s actions caused foreseeable harm.