Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
Patients trust medical facilities to follow accepted standards of care, maintain appropriate staffing levels, and protect them from avoidable harm during hospitalization. When that trust is breached, the resulting injuries can be substantial. A recent decision from a New York court sheds light on the types of discovery a plaintiff may obtain when alleging that inadequate staffing contributed to a serious hospital-acquired injury. If you or a loved one suffered harm while admitted to a hospital, you should talk to a Rochester medical malpractice attorney who can help you understand what evidence may be available to support your claim.
History of the Case
It is reported that the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant’s hospital for roughly 20 days in November 2017, during which time he allegedly developed a significant pressure ulcer on his lower back. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant failed to conduct a complete physical examination, did not implement adequate preventive measures, and failed to properly monitor his condition, leading to the development of the ulcer. These shortcomings occurred while the plaintiff was treated in the intensive care unit.
Allegedly, during discovery, the plaintiff demanded disclosure of the defendant’s staffing plan, staffing schedule, and attendance records for all employees assigned to the intensive care unit during the month in question. The defendant objected, asserting that the request was vague, overly burdensome, and irrelevant because the plaintiff’s initial bill of particulars did not allege negligent staffing. The plaintiff subsequently served an amended bill of particulars, adding allegations that the defendant failed to properly hire, staff, train, educate, supervise, and monitor the individuals responsible for his care.
It is alleged that after amending the bill of particulars, the plaintiff moved to strike the defendant’s answer based on its refusal to turn over the requested staffing documents. The plaintiff also sought an order compelling production of the records as alternative relief. In response, the defendant cross-moved for a protective order and asked the court to require the plaintiff to rescind letters he had sent to treating providers regarding potential communications with defense counsel. The trial court granted the protective order, denied the plaintiff’s motion in full, and directed the plaintiff to withdraw the letters. The plaintiff appealed.
Discovery Permitted in Medical Malpractice Cases
On appeal, the court examined whether the staffing information was “material and necessary” under CPLR 3101. In doing so, the court emphasized that New York’s liberal discovery rules allow for disclosure of any information that will assist in trial preparation by clarifying issues and avoiding unnecessary delay. Because the amended bill of particulars expressly alleged negligent staffing, the court found the staffing plan, schedule, and attendance records directly relevant.
The materials were necessary, the court explained, to allow the plaintiff to investigate whether appropriate numbers of medical professionals were assigned to the intensive care unit and whether those individuals were actually present during the plaintiff’s admission. The court therefore modified the lower court’s order by compelling disclosure and denying the defendant’s request for a protective order as to these documents.
The court, however, agreed with the trial court that striking the defendant’s answer was unwarranted. There was no showing that the defendant acted willfully or in bad faith, particularly given the short interval between the plaintiff’s amendment of the bill of particulars and the filing of the motion.
The court also found no abuse of discretion in the lower court’s directive requiring the plaintiff to rescind his letters to treating physicians. The court concluded that the language in the letters risked discouraging physicians from participating in permissible informal interviews under established precedent and could mislead physicians regarding their obligations once a HIPAA-compliant authorization had been executed. Because such communications could undermine the discovery process, the court upheld the rescission order.
Talk to a Trusted Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney
If you sustained harm during a hospital stay due to suspected lapses in care, you may be owed damages, and you should talk to an attorney. The trusted Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can evaluate your case and help you to seek justice for your losses. We represent clients throughout Rochester, Syracuse, and across New York State in medical malpractice and hospital negligence cases. Contact us at 833-200-2000 or reach us online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.
