Surgical Error

Court Explains the Standard for Summary Judgment in New York Medical Malpractice Actions

Published on: February 7, 2026 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Serious surgical complications often raise a critical question in medical malpractice litigation: was the outcome an unavoidable risk or the result of preventable error? When patients suffer unexpected injuries following complex procedures, courts must closely examine competing medical explanations to determine whether a case should proceed to trial. A recent New York decision highlights how sharply conflicting expert opinions can shape that determination, particularly where the alleged injury appears severe and atypical. If you or a loved one experienced unexpected complications after surgery, you should consider speaking with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to evaluate whether negligent care may have played a role.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent cancer treatment followed by a complex colorectal surgery performed at a hospital operated by the defendant, after which she began experiencing significant complications, including urinary symptoms and pelvic discomfort.

It is alleged that subsequent examinations revealed that surgical staples had been placed through both the anterior and posterior vaginal walls, effectively obstructing the vaginal canal and contributing to additional complications requiring corrective procedures.

Reportedly, further diagnostic testing identified a fistula between the vagina and colorectal anastomosis, and the plaintiff later underwent extensive reconstructive surgery to repair the damage and address ongoing symptoms.

It is reported that the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action asserting departures from accepted surgical practice and lack of informed consent, while also asserting derivative claims related to the injuries sustained.

Allegedly, the defendants moved for summary judgment, submitting expert affirmations asserting that the procedure was properly performed, that the complications were known risks of the surgery and prior radiation treatment, and that the plaintiff’s symptoms were unrelated to any alleged surgical error.

The Standard for Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Actions

The court began its analysis by outlining the governing standard for summary judgment in medical malpractice actions. A defendant must establish either that there was no departure from accepted medical practice or that any alleged departure was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. This burden is typically satisfied through detailed expert affirmations grounded in the medical record.

The defendants submitted expert opinions asserting that the surgery was medically necessary and performed within accepted standards, emphasizing the use of proper visualization techniques and surgical precautions. Their experts further contended that the complications identified were recognized risks of colorectal surgery, particularly in patients who had undergone radiation therapy, and that alternative causes explained the plaintiff’s urinary and pelvic symptoms.

The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to raise triable issues of fact. The plaintiff met this burden by submitting multiple expert affirmations that directly challenged both the standard of care and causation. The plaintiff’s experts opined that the surgical outcome was not a recognized risk but rather the result of improper technique, specifically the failure to properly identify and maintain separation between anatomical structures during the procedure.

The court gave significant weight to the plaintiff’s experts’ detailed explanations of surgical protocols, including the necessity of clear visualization and protective measures to avoid incorporating adjacent structures into a staple line. The experts further emphasized that the extent of the injury, including complete stapling of the vaginal canal, could not occur in the absence of negligence.

On the issue of causation, the plaintiff’s experts rebutted the defense position that radiation therapy caused the symptoms. They explained that the timing and nature of the injuries were more consistent with intraoperative error and that the structural damage caused by the staples directly resulted in the plaintiff’s complications and need for additional surgery.

Because both sides presented competent and conflicting expert opinions, the court concluded that credibility determinations were required, which are reserved for a jury. As a result, the court denied summary judgment on the medical malpractice claims.

Consult with Skilled Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorneys

If you or a loved one experienced complications following surgery, you should consult an attorney regarding your options. The skilled Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can assess your case and advise you of your potential claims. Call 833-200-2000 or visit us online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.

New York Court Analyzes Conflicting Testimony in Surgical Error Case

Published on: July 22, 2025 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

While most surgical procedures come with some degree of risk, certain complications are almost always the result of carelessness. The distinction between an unfortunate outcome and medical negligence can be difficult to determine, though, especially in cases involving complex surgical histories and multiple comorbidities. A recent ruling issued by a New York court in a medical malpractice case demonstrates how courts evaluate competing expert testimony and assess whether a malpractice claim should proceed to trial. If you have experienced serious complications following surgery, it is in your best interest to speak with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney about your rights.

History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a hysterectomy at the defendant’s hospital. At the time, the plaintiff was 65 years old. Her medical history included prior abdominal surgeries and breast cancer. During the procedure, the surgeon encountered abdominal adhesions that required them to convert the surgery from laparoscopy to open surgery. During the procedure, the surgeon identified and repaired intraoperative injuries to the bladder and small bowel. Complications arose that prompted a second surgery, during which another bowel perforation was discovered and repaired. The plaintiff subsequently developed sepsis, went into cardiac arrest, and endured a prolonged hospitalization that included additional surgeries and the placement of a colostomy.

It is further reported that the plaintiff later filed a lawsuit against the hospital, asserting medical malpractice and lack of informed consent. The plaintiff alleged that the surgical team failed to adequately inspect the bowel before closing the abdomen, which allowed the third bowel injury to go unnoticed. She also asserted that inadequate preoperative counseling and documentation supported a claim for lack of informed consent. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that its providers complied with the standard of care and that the plaintiff’s injuries were unavoidable complications arising from her preexisting medical condition. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Malpractice Arising Out of Post-Surgical Errors

Published on: January 6, 2025 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

When patients undergo surgery, they trust that their healthcare providers will follow standard medical practices to ensure their safety, which includes adhering to established discharge procedures. It is not uncommon, though, for healthcare providers to discharge patients without confirming they are healing as expected, which often leads to preventable pain and complications and may be considered medical malpractice. Recently, a New York court highlighted how courts examine medical malpractice claims when postoperative care and discharge decisions are called into question. If you or a loved one suffered due to negligent post-surgical care, it is in your best interest to consult a Rochester medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff underwent laparoscopic surgery at a medical facility operated by the defendants. The procedure included a biopsy of endometrial implants and the removal of an intrauterine device. The plaintiff reportedly experienced complications immediately following the surgery, including severe abdominal pain, an inability to pass gas, and difficulty ambulating. Despite these symptoms and a note from the surgeon indicating that the plaintiff should not be discharged until passing gas, the plaintiff was discharged the next day.

It is further reported that the plaintiff continued to experience severe symptoms after discharge, including fever, vomiting, and abdominal pain. She returned to the hospital several days later, where she underwent emergency surgery. During this procedure, the surgeon discovered and repaired a perforation in the plaintiff’s colon. The plaintiff claims that the perforation was caused during the initial surgery and that the failure to recognize and address the injury promptly resulted in prolonged suffering and additional medical interventions. The plaintiff and her spouse subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging medical malpractice and loss of consortium. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Resident Liability in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: May 10, 2024 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Teaching hospitals often offer patients the most advanced care and cutting-edge treatments. In most teaching hospitals, residents provide care to patients, under the supervision of attending physicians. If a patient cared for by a resident subsequently suffers harm, it can be difficult to establish that the resident should be liable for medical malpractice, as discussed in a recent opinion delivered in a New York medical malpractice case. If you were harmed during a procedure performed by a resident, it is worthwhile to meet with a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent a pediatric scoliosis surgery, that included a procedure known as a facetectomy. The defendant resident, who was in his fourth year of residency, performed the procedure under the supervision of the defendant doctor, who was employed by the defendant hospital and had privileges at the defendant health system.

It is reported that the plaintiff subsequently suffered a spinal cord injury, after which she filed a medical malpractice complaint against the defendants. The defendants moved for summary judgment, but the court denied their motion. They then appealed. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Liability in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: February 15, 2024 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

Improperly performed surgical procedures can worsen health issues and cause lasting pain. As such, people harmed by such medical errors will often seek redress via medical malpractice lawsuits. When faced with such claims, doctors will rarely admit liability, but unless they adequately refute the plaintiffs’ allegations, the claims against them will likely be presented to a jury, as demonstrated in a recent New York case. If you sustained losses due to a negligently performed procedure, it is advisable to talk to a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer about what damages you may be able to pursue against the provider responsible for your harm.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff underwent surgery to alleviate lower back pain. The defendant surgeon performed the procedure at the defendant hospital. Following the initial surgery, the plaintiff experienced severe and persistent pain in her lower back, leading to subsequent surgeries. She subsequently filed a medical malpractice action, alleging negligence on the part of the surgeon and claiming severe personal injuries resulting from the surgeries. The defendants moved for summary judgment.

Allegedly, in support of their motion, the defendants submitted an expert affirmation stating that the surgeries were performed correctly and that any injuries sustained were not medically plausible consequences of the surgeries. Despite this, the expert did not provide an alternative explanation for the injuries. As such, the trial court denied the defendants’ motion and issued an order dismissing the complaint. The defendants appealed. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses the Statute of Limitations in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: August 14, 2023 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

New York law provides people harmed by the incompetence of doctors the right to seek compensation via medical malpractice claims. The right is not infinite, though, as such claims must be pursued within the statute of limitations. Certain scenarios warrant tolling of the statute of limitations, however, as discussed in a recent New York opinion. If you suffered harm due to an improperly performed procedure, it is wise to meet with a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible.

The Plaintiff’s Harm and Subsequent Claims

It is reported that the plaintiff presented to the defendant’s hospital for a hernia repair surgery. Following the procedure, she suffered an anoxic brain injury while in the post-anesthesia care unit. She was found unresponsive and pulseless and was revived by the defendant’s employees. She remained comatose for weeks, responding involuntarily to physical stimuli but not vocal cues.

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s brain injury left her cortically blind and wheelchair-bound. She subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging the defendant’s employee’s inadequate medication and monitoring delayed recognition of her deteriorating condition caused her cardiac arrest and subsequent injuries. Her husband filed a derivate claim as well. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, arguing her claims were time-barred. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Elements of Medical Negligence and Lack of Informed Consent Claims

Published on: July 13, 2021 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

A patient that suffers harm due to a medical procedure may seek to recover damages via a medical malpractice lawsuit. In some instances, an injured patient may not only be able to allege the surgeon who performed the surgery is liable for medical negligence but may also be able to pursue a lack of informed consent claim as well. Negligence and informed consent claims have different elements, and merely because plaintiffs can proceed with one claim does not mean they will be able to proceed with another, as demonstrated in a recent New York opinion. If you suffered harm due to the carelessness of a surgeon, it is smart to speak to a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer about your options for seeking damages.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is alleged that the defendant performed a total left hip replacement surgery on the plaintiff in August of 2014. The plaintiff subsequently sustained damage to his left femoral nerve, which he asserted was due to the defendant’s negligence during the procedure. Thus, he filed a medical malpractice complaint against the defendant in late 2015, in which he set forth medical negligence and lack of informed consent claims. The defendant moved for summary judgment on both claims, asking the trial court to dismiss the case. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed.

Establishing Triable Issues of Fact in Medical Negligence and Lack of Informed Consent Claims

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order as to the lack of informed consent claim but denied it with regard to the medical negligence claim. The appellate court explained that the evidence of the case, including the plaintiff’s deposition, the written consent form signed by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s medical records, demonstrated that the defendant advised him of the benefits, risks, and alternatives to the surgery. Thus, the appellate court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate there was a triable question of fact on the lack of informed consent claim and reversed the trial court ruling. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Explains Spoliation Sanctions in Medical Malpractice Matters

Published on: June 23, 2021 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In medical malpractice matters, the plaintiff will typically rely, in part, on treatment records to show that the defendant failed to provide competent care. Thus, if a defendant fails to retain medical records, imaging, or other documents relating to the plaintiff’s care, it could adversely impact the plaintiff’s ability to establish fault. Further, as discussed in a recent New York opinion issued in a surgical malpractice case, in certain circumstances, the spoliation of evidence may be a basis for imposing sanctions. If you were injured by a negligently performed procedure, you could be owed compensation, and it is in your best interest to meet with a Rochester surgical malpractice lawyer about your potential claims.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

It is alleged that the plaintiff visited the defendant facility, where he was treated for swelling and pain in his left leg by the defendant doctors. The defendant doctors performed a venogram and diagnosed the plaintiff with deep vein thrombosis. He was admitted to the defendant hospital, where he was treated with numerous medications, including blood thinners and anticoagulants. During his admission, he suffered a brain hemorrhage which rendered him permanently paralyzed on the left side of his body.

It is reported that the plaintiff instituted a lawsuit against the defendants, asserting claims of medical malpractice and lack of informed consent. During discovery, he sought records from the defendants, including imaging from the venogram. The defendants responded they did not have the images and subsequently moved for summary judgment. The plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion in which he sought sanctions against the defendants for spoliation of evidence. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion and denied the plaintiff’s request for sanctions, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Discusses Statute of Limitations for Medical Malpractice Cases Involving Foreign Objects

Published on: April 14, 2021 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

A medical malpractice lawsuit, like most civil claims, must be pursued in a timely manner; otherwise, the injured party may waive the right to recover damages. In some instances, though, plaintiffs that fail to file cases within the applicable statute of limitations may nonetheless be able to proceed with their claims if they can show that the statute was tolled. In a recent opinion issued in a medical malpractice case, a New York court discussed tolling of the statute of limitations for harm caused by foreign objects left in a person after surgery. If you suffered harm due to errors committed during surgery, it is advisable to speak to a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer to determine your potential claims.

The Plaintiff’s Claims

It is reported that the plaintiff visited the emergency department of the defendant hospital when she was ten years old with complaints of abdominal pain. She was diagnosed with appendicitis and underwent an emergency appendectomy which was performed by the defendant. Fourteen years later, she instituted a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendants, alleging that foreign objects were left inside of her body following the surgery, causing her to suffer reproductive and gastrointestinal issues, and pain. The defendants moved to have the plaintiff’s claims dismissed, arguing that she failed to pursue them within the time provided by the applicable statute of limitations.

Tolling of the Statute of Limitations in Medical Malpractice Cases

Under New York law, the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice claim is typically two years and six months from the date the cause of action accrued. There is an exception, though, for cases that arise out of the discovery that a foreign object was left in the body of the patient. In such instances, the action may be commenced within one year of the date of the discovery of the foreign object or the revelation of facts that would lead to such discovery, whichever is earlier. Continue Reading ›

New York Court Emphasizes the Need for Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Cases

Published on: March 30, 2021 | By DeFrancisco & Falgiatano

In all but the clearest of cases, what constitutes medical malpractice is generally not readily understood by the average juror. As such, medical malpractice cases typically hinge on expert testimony. Plaintiffs that fail to produce expert testimony, then, will likely have their cases dismissed, as they will be unable to demonstrate a breach of the standard of care. This was demonstrated in a recent New York opinion, in which the court dismissed a pro se plaintiff’s surgical malpractice claims via summary judgment, due to her failure to produce an expert affidavit. If you were harmed by a negligent surgeon, you could be owed compensation, and it is advisable to meet with a trusted Rochester medical malpractice lawyer to evaluate your situation.

The Plaintiff’s Alleged Harm

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent a surgical procedure that was performed by the defendant, in which fat was transferred from her back, arms, and abdomen into other parts of her body. Following the procedure, she suffered pain in her right hip and bleeding. Additionally, she believed that pictures were taken of her when she was unconscious during the procedure. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging medical malpractice claims. After discovery was completed, the defendant moved for dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims by way of summary judgment. Upon reviewing the evidence presented, the court granted the defendant’s motion.

Proving Medical Negligence Under New York Law

The court explained that, in order to prove a medical malpractice claim in New York, a plaintiff must show that the defendant breached the standard of care accepted in the community and that the breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s harm. Thus, if a defendant demonstrates that it did not depart from the standard of care or that any departure from the standard of care did not cause the plaintiff’s injuries, the defendant will be prima facie entitled to summary judgment. Continue Reading ›