Articles Posted in Medical Malpractice

Typically, disorders involving the feet are not life-threatening and do not require emergent care. Foot conditions can cause pain and difficulty walking, however, and in some instances necessitate surgical treatment. Podiatrists, like all other healthcare providers, must comply with the applicable standard of care, and if they deviate from the standard and their patients subsequently suffer harm, it may constitute grounds for pursuing medical malpractice claims against them. Recently, a New York court discussed what constitutes appropriate treatment for bunions, in a matter in which the plaintiff asserted medical malpractice claims against the defendant after he amputated her second toes. If you suffered harm due to the negligence of your podiatrist, you may be able to recover damages, and it is in your best interest to speak to a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible.

The Plaintiff’s Treatment

It is alleged that the plaintiff went to the defendant podiatrist for treatment of bunions and crossover abnormalities involving the great and second toes on both feet, which caused her discomfort and prevented her from wearing most shoes. Defendant offered numerous treatment options, including forefoot reconstruction surgery, amputation of the second toes, and bunion shaving. The plaintiff chose amputation and bunion shaving in part because the defendant represented it required significantly less recuperation time than reconstructive surgery.

Reportedly, the plaintiff underwent the procedure without complication but continued to experience discomfort. She then sought care from two other podiatrists, who advise her that amputation was not an appropriate treatment for his issues, and caused her to experience difficulty walking, She then filed a malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment but the court denied his motion. He appealed. Continue Reading ›

Medical malpractice cases are typically fact intensive, and plaintiffs usually must offer evidence in the form of treatment records and expert testimony to prove their allegations. Typically, medical records and other information regarding a plaintiff’s care are obtained via discovery. As such, if a defendant refuses to comply with a plaintiff’s discovery requests or otherwise engage in the discovery process, it can be detrimental to the plaintiff’s claims. In such instances, plaintiffs can petition the courts to impose sanctions on the defendants, such as barring them from offering certain defenses or evidence. The grounds for sanctioning a defendant for failing to respond to discovery requests was the topic of an opinion recently issued by a court in a New York medical malpractice case. If you suffered losses due to the carelessness of your treatment provider, you may be owed compensation, and you should confer with a  Rochester medical malpractice lawyer regarding your potential claims.

The Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff commenced a lawsuit against the defendant health care provider in 2009. The plaintiff’s complaint sought damages for personal injuries, medical malpractice, and other claims. In June 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion asking, among other things, that the court strike the defendant’s answer to the complaint, and bar the defendant from providing any evidence at trial. The basis of the plaintiff’s request was the fact that the defendant failed to comply with prior discovery orders. The court ultimately denied the motion and the plaintiff appealed.

Sanctions for Failing to Comply with Discovery Orders in a Medical Malpractice Case

Although the Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining the nature and severity of a sanction imposed under New York law, the drastic remedy of striking a pleading or even precluding evidence should not be imposed unless the failure to comply with discovery demands or orders is clearly willful. In the subject case, the appellate court agreed with the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant’s failure to comply with the subject orders arose out of willful intent. Continue Reading ›

Doctors accused of committing medical malpractice rarely admit their liability. Rather, in many malpractice cases, the defendant will argue that there is no evidence that they are at fault for the plaintiff’s alleged harm, and therefore, the case should be dismissed via summary judgment prior to trial. Recently, a New York court discussed the burden of proof imposed on each party in a medical malpractice case with regard to summary judgment, in a matter in which it ultimately denied the defendant’s motion. If you were hurt by the carelessness of a health care provider, you might be able to cover compensation for your harm, and it is in your best interest to speak to a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer about your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a surgical procedure on her right leg at the defendant hospital on August 7, 2014. She returned four days later with complaints of leg pain and ultimately underwent an above the knee amputation of her right leg. She proceeded to file a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that it committed numerous errors that resulted in the loss of her leg. Following discovery, the defendant moved to have the plaintiff’s claims dismissed via summary judgment. The court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed.

The Shifting Burdens of Proof in Medical Malpractice Cases

To establish a physician’s culpability for medical malpractice, a plaintiff must show that the physician deviated or diverged from established community standards of practice and that this deviation was a direct cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.   Thus, a defendant moving for dismissal via summary judgment in a medical malpractice case defendant must prove, prima facie, that it did not depart from the standard or that any departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s harm. Once a defendant establishes this prima facie showing, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence of a triable issue of fact, but only as to the factors on which the defendant has met its burden. Continue Reading ›

Expert testimony is a key component of New York medical malpractice cases. In other words, while a compelling expert report may provide a plaintiff with protection from the dismissal of their claims via summary judgment, a report that is speculative or that is not based on reliable methodology may be inadequate to demonstrate that a factual dispute demands that a case proceeds to trial. This was illustrated recently when a New York court affirmed the dismissal of a plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims, largely due to the weakness of her expert report. If you suffered harm due to negligent medical care, you might be owed damages, and you should meet with a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your potential claims.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff contracted Guillain-Barre syndrome. While the facts regarding her care are sparse, she ultimately filed a medical lawsuit against the defendant hospital, alleging that it failed to diagnose her with the condition or treat it in a timely manner, which ultimately decreased her chance of a favorable outcome. The defendant moved for dismissal via summary judgment. The court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Expert Reports in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling. The court explained that, in New York medical malpractice cases, the defendant bears the initial burden of proving that it did not deviate from the accepted practice of medicine or that any alleged deviation did not cause the plaintiff’s harm. The burden then shifts to the plaintiff, who must refute the defendant’s assertions in order to survive summary judgment. Continue Reading ›

Long-term care facilities often require people to sign contracts prior to admission. Such contracts generally set forth the expectations of both parties, but they may also impact a resident’s right to pursue damages for medical malpractice. This was demonstrated in a recent New York case in which a court upheld an arbitration clause in a short-term admission agreement, dismissing the plaintiff’s medical malpractice and wrongful death claims. If you or someone you love suffered injuries due to the incompetence of a medical provider, you may be owed damages, and you should speak to a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer to evaluate your options for protecting your interests.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the decedent was admitted to a rehabilitation and healthcare center in Pennsylvania that was owned and operated by the defendant. At the time of her admission, she signed a short-term admission agreement that, in relevant part, contained numerous provisions stating that disputes between residents and the facility and medical malpractice claims against the facility must be resolved by mediation or arbitration.

Allegedly, the decedent later passed away, after which the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants in a federal court sitting in New York, alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death claims. The defendant moved to dismiss the case, citing the mandatory arbitration provisions. The court ultimately granted the motion in part, staying the matter pending arbitration. Continue Reading ›

In New York, certain medical facilities are owned and operated by the federal government. As such, medical malpractice claims against such entities must typically be brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (the Act). If a plaintiff fails to abide by the notice requirements imposed by the Act, it may result in a dismissal of their claims. This was demonstrated in a recent New York medical malpractice case filed by a pro se plaintiff. If you were harmed by inadequate medical care received in a federal facility, it is smart to speak to a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer regarding what measures you must take to recover damages.

The Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was detained at a federal facility. While there, he suffered harm due to negligent medical care. He subsequently filed numerous claims against the defendant government and other parties, including medical negligence. The court subsequently dismissed all of the claims except for medical negligence. The defendant then moved to dismiss the medical negligence claims on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirements imposed by the Act. The court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.

A plaintiff in a New York medical malpractice case typically must produce evidence showing each element of the underlying claims in order to recover damages. As such, if a plaintiff fails to produce competent evidence, their claims may be dismissed before the case proceeds to trial via summary judgment. Recently, a New York court issued an opinion in a medical malpractice case discussing what evidence is needed to withstand summary judgment. If you sustained injuries due to the negligence of a health care provider, it is advisable to speak to a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer about your possible claims.

The History of the Case

The opinion provided few facts regarding the plaintiff’s care and the purported harm. It is alleged, however, that the plaintiff underwent treatment at the defendant hospital. He subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant hospital and defendant doctors, alleging that the doctors’ failure to examine him constituted malpractice. The defendants moved for dismissal via summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion. The plaintiff then appealed.

Evidence Demonstrating a Triable Issue of Fact

On appeal, the court explained that summary judgment is only appropriate in cases in which there is no true dispute with regard to a material fact, and therefore, the moving party should be granted judgment as a matter of law. While one of the core rules of civil procedure is that a trial court typically should not dismiss a matter via summary judgment based on its evaluation of the credibility of the evidence offered, there are exceptions. Continue Reading ›