New York medical malpractice lawsuits are subject to the same civil procedure rules as other litigation in New York courts. These rules guide all phases of the litigation and are comprised of deadlines, requests, and filings made to the court. Sometimes lawsuits are dismissed because of procedural lapses, instead of being dismissed on the merits of the malpractice claim. In one case, the New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department ruled on whether the plaintiff’s lawsuit should have been dismissed pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, Rule 3404.
The facts of the case are as follows. A patient was admitted to a Niagara Falls hospital’s psychiatric wing. While under the psychiatrist’s care, the patient leaped from the top of the hospital’s roof and suffered serious injuries. The guardian of the patient filed a psychiatric malpractice lawsuit against the patient’s psychiatrist. The pre-trial litigation phase of discovery commenced, and the plaintiff filed a note of issue. In response, the defendant moved to vacate the note of issue because discovery was incomplete, the defendant alleged. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion and ordered additional discovery.
The plaintiff did not file a new note of issue for another year. Thus, the defendant moved to dismiss the psychiatric malpractice claim pursuant to Rule 3404. This procedural rule allows for the judicial dismissal of inactive cases under certain prescribed situations. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that 3404 did not apply when the note of issue has been vacated. The court denied the defendant’s motion and noted that this very issue was subject to inconsistent rulings at the trial court level.
The court sided with an interpretation of Rule 3404 that found that vacating a note of issue does not qualify as being “struck” under Rule 3404. The court reasoned that a case is “placed” on the calendar when a note of issue is filed, but it is not true that a case is “struck” from the calendar whenever the note of issue is vacated.
The court’s ruling means that the psychiatric malpractice lawsuit against the Niagara Falls psychiatrist can proceed.
Medical providers in emergency rooms are required to make appropriate and timely diagnoses of life-threatening medical conditions. Other specialists, such as psychiatrists, have the duty to monitor for life-threatening conditions. All medical providers are under the duty to provide medical care in accordance with generally accepted medical standards. For some patients, errors unfortunately occur. To speak with a Rochester attorney about your case, call DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers at 315-479-9000 or contact us online.
More Blog Posts:
Anesthesia Error Claim Dismissed on Appeal After Plaintiff Fails to Produce Expert Affidavit, Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Blog, October 23, 2017
New York Court Allows Anesthesia Error Case to Proceed, Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Blog, September 12, 2017
Stroke Victim May Proceed with Neurological Malpractice Claim Against Upstate New York Doctors and Hospitals, Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Blog, November 1, 2017