Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
Patients trust their surgeons to perform procedures with precision and to recognize any complications that arise afterward. When that trust is broken, the results can be devastating. A recent decision from a New York court highlights how disputes over expert testimony and surgical standards often determine whether a malpractice case proceeds to trial. The case illustrates that even when a complication is a known surgical risk, physicians may still be held accountable if they fail to meet the accepted standard of care. If you or someone you love has suffered harm following a surgical procedure, you should speak with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney experienced in handling complex surgical injury claims to learn about your legal rights and options.
History of the Case
It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a Cesarean section performed by the defendants at a hospital operated by one of the defendant medical entities. During the course of the surgery, the plaintiff sustained a bowel perforation, a serious complication that, while recognized as a potential risk of Cesarean delivery, can cause severe and lasting harm if not promptly diagnosed and treated. It is alleged that after the surgery, the plaintiff began to experience nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and an elevated heart rate within two days of the procedure. These symptoms were indicative of a bowel perforation, yet the defendants failed to recognize the severity of her condition, delaying necessary treatment.
Allegedly, after enduring worsening symptoms and further medical intervention, the plaintiff learned that her bowel had been perforated, prompting her to initiate a lawsuit asserting medical malpractice against the defendants. The complaint alleged that the defendants deviated from the accepted standards of obstetrical and surgical care during the Cesarean section and in the postoperative period. Specifically, it was asserted that the defendants failed to adequately inspect the bowel before closing the surgical site and failed to respond appropriately to signs and symptoms of a perforation. The defendants moved for summary judgment, submitting an affirmation from an expert obstetrician-gynecologist who opined that the care provided was appropriate. The trial court denied their motion, and the defendants appealed that decision.
Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Cases
On appeal, the defendants contended that their expert’s affirmation established that the Cesarean section and postoperative care complied with accepted medical practices. In opposition, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit from a medical expert who concluded that the defendants departed from the standard of care by failing to “run the bowel,” meaning to manually inspect the intestines for injury before closing the surgical incision. The plaintiff’s expert further opined that a mere visual inspection was inadequate, particularly given that abdominal adhesions were observed during surgery, and that the defendants’ failure to respond to the plaintiff’s postoperative symptoms, nausea, vomiting, significant abdominal pain, and tachycardia, constituted additional departures from the standard of care.
The court determined that the plaintiff’s expert’s opinions raised material questions of fact that precluded summary judgment. The court emphasized that even if bowel perforation is a known risk of Cesarean delivery, the defendants could still be found negligent if they failed to act according to accepted medical standards. The court further rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiff’s expert introduced a new theory of liability by referencing the need to “run the bowel.” Citing precedent, the court held that an expert may expand upon allegations already set forth in the pleadings as long as the opposing party is not unfairly surprised or prejudiced. Because the practice of running the bowel had been discussed during depositions, the defendants could not claim surprise. Accordingly, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision denying summary judgment, allowing the plaintiff’s malpractice claim to proceed to trial.
Talk to a Dedicated Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney
If you suffered harm due to surgical error, delayed diagnosis, or other forms of medical negligence, the dedicated Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers are prepared to help. Our experienced team represents clients across Rochester, Syracuse, and throughout New York State. Contact us today at 833-200-2000 or online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.
