Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
An injury sustained in a hospital does not, by itself, establish that staff failed to provide proper care. A patient’s family must connect the challenged supervision or treatment to a departure from professional standards. A recent New York decision shows how a case can also turn on a missed filing deadline and whether the opposing expert evidence identifies a real dispute. Families evaluating a hospital fall can consult a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to understand the records, deadlines, and proof their claim may require.
Facts and Procedural History
Allegedly, the patient entered a hospital for treatment of a urinary tract infection. Staff assessed her as a fall risk and adopted safety measures. In June 2018, she fell while moving from a chair to her bed with the assistance of a patient engagement specialist and sustained injuries. The hospital discharged her to a nursing home later that month. She died in January 2020.
Reportedly, a proposed estate administrator sued the hospital and a related health system, asserting medical malpractice, negligence, and wrongful death. The defendants sought summary judgment. The plaintiff submitted opposition papers, but the trial court treated them as untimely and granted the defense motion without considering them. The plaintiff then moved to vacate that order and revive the opportunity to oppose dismissal. The trial court denied that request because it found no potentially meritorious opposition, and the plaintiff appealed.
How the Court Evaluated the Request to Reopen the Case
To vacate an order entered after a party defaults in opposing summary judgment, the party must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition. The trial court has discretion in deciding whether to grant relief. The court focused on whether the plaintiff’s proposed response could meaningfully contest the defendants’ evidence, so the procedural issue required examination of the underlying malpractice proof.
In a medical malpractice action, genuinely conflicting expert opinions can prevent summary judgment. An opposing expert, however, must address specific assertions by the defense expert, explain the reasoning, and cite particular evidence in the record. An unsupported conclusion that the hospital should have done more does not create a trial issue merely because it comes from an expert.
Here, the defendants’ expert stated that the hospital complied with accepted standards when it assessed the patient’s fall risk and decided the level of supervision needed during movement. The court held that this opinion established the defendants’ initial entitlement to judgment. The plaintiff’s expert response did not specifically confront the defense explanation with a reasoned, record-based analysis. The court characterized the response as insufficient to show a potentially meritorious opposition.
That deficiency was decisive even though the original opposition had not been considered because of timing. As such, the court affirmed the refusal to vacate the dismissal order and awarded costs to the defendants.
Consult an Experienced Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney
Hospital fall claims require careful attention to fall-risk assessments, staffing, and supervision decisions, and liability often hinges on the strength of expert testimony. If you or a loved one suffered injuries in a fall in a hospital, you may be owed damages, and you should talk to an attorney. The experienced Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can review the circumstances surrounding your harm and help you understand your possible next steps. Call 833-200-2000 or contact the firm online for a free, confidential consultation. We serve clients in Rochester and other Upstate New York communities.
