Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
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.
