COVID-19 Update: The attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano are dedicated to the health and well being of all. Our office will continue to remain open, but for the safety of everyone, we will conduct all business over the phone, via email, or through FaceTime if requested. We sincerely thank you for your interest in our firm and we wish everyone the best of health.

Articles Posted in Urology Malpractice

Published on:

In most medical malpractice cases, whether the defendant or plaintiff is ultimately successful largely hinges on the credibility of their respective experts. Specifically, many plaintiff’s cases are dismissed prior to reaching trial because the plaintiff cannot produce sufficient evidence via expert testimony to establish that there is a dispute as to the defendant’s liability. In cases in which experts disagree, however, the decision of whether the defendant provider committed medical malpractice ultimately rests with the jury, as discussed in a recent urology case decided by a New York court. If you sustained harm due to incompetent care rendered by a urologist, it is advisable to speak with a skillful Rochester urology malpractice attorney to discuss what evidence you must set forth to establish liability.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff, who was suffering from prostate cancer, underwent a prostatectomy that was performed at the defendant hospital, by the defendant urologist. Following the removal of the plaintiff’s prostate, his urethra was reattached to the neck of his bladder, and a Foley catheter was placed to allow the urethra to heal and urine to drain. Three days after the plaintiff was discharged from the defendant hospital, he began to feel pain and reported to the emergency room. Upon examination, it was discovered by the defendant doctor that the plaintiff was retaining urine. The catheter was removed by the defendant nurse, and a new catheter was inserted. A CT scan was conducted that showed the catheter was in the bladder, and the plaintiff was again discharged.

Reportedly, the plaintiff had a follow-up appointment the next day, during which he reported continued pain. A second CT scan was ordered that revealed the plaintiff had a perforated rectum and that he had developed a fistula. He subsequently underwent an emergency laparotomy and loop colostomy. He then filed a lawsuit against the defendants, alleging medical malpractice. In turn, each of the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, assigning blame to the other defendants. The court granted the motions of the defendant urologist and the defendant hospital, after which the plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading

Justia Lawyer Rating
Contact Information