Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
Delayed diagnosis and treatment of stroke symptoms can have catastrophic consequences, particularly when hospital systems and consulting physicians fail to act with urgency. A recent decision from a New York court highlights how questions of timing, communication, and specialist involvement can determine whether a medical malpractice case proceeds to trial. If you believe that a doctor’s negligence contributed to a loved one’s injury or death, you should consider speaking with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to better understand your rights and potential remedies.
Facts and Procedural History
It is alleged that the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice and wrongful death action on behalf of a decedent who was admitted to a hospital after exhibiting symptoms consistent with a stroke. The claims centered on the defendants’ failure to timely detect and properly treat the stroke following admission, which the plaintiff contended resulted in conscious pain and suffering and ultimately death. The complaint asserted causes of action for medical malpractice, wrongful death, and derivative damages against multiple healthcare providers and institutions.
Allegedly, during the hospitalization, the decedent did not receive prompt neurological evaluation or intervention despite clinical signs that warranted urgent assessment. The plaintiff asserted that delays in recognizing the evolving neurological event and in initiating appropriate treatment deprived the decedent of the opportunity to benefit from time-sensitive stroke therapies.
Reportedly, several defendants separately moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the claims against them. One group of defendants argued that they did not depart from accepted medical practice and that any alleged departures did not cause the decedent’s injuries. Another group maintained that institutional protocols were followed and that no actionable negligence could be established based on the record.
It is reported that the trial court granted summary judgment in full to certain defendants and granted partial summary judgment to others, dismissing significant portions of the malpractice, wrongful death, and derivative claims. The plaintiff appealed, contending that the trial court improperly resolved disputed issues of fact that should have been left for a jury.
Grounds for Allowing Wrongful Death Claims to Proceed to Trial
On appeal, the court explained that a defendant moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating either the absence of any departure from accepted medical practice or the lack of a causal connection between the alleged departure and the claimed injuries. Only if that burden is met does the obligation shift to the plaintiff to raise triable issues of fact.
The court closely examined the expert submissions offered by both sides. Although certain defendants satisfied their prima facie burden through expert affirmations addressing deviation and causation, the court determined that the plaintiff’s opposing expert affidavit created genuine disputes of material fact. The plaintiff’s expert addressed when the decedent’s stroke symptoms began, whether treatment windows remained open at key points, and whether timely intervention could have improved the decedent’s outcome. The court emphasized that when qualified experts offer conflicting opinions grounded in the record, those disagreements present classic credibility issues that must be resolved by a jury rather than on motion practice.
The court also rejected arguments that summary judgment was warranted based on the absence of a physician-patient relationship, finding unresolved factual questions concerning the nature and extent of the physician’s involvement in the decedent’s care. In addition, the appellate panel reinstated claims premised on vicarious liability after determining that the underlying malpractice claims against individual providers should not have been dismissed.
With respect to the hospital defendants, the court concluded that factual issues existed as to whether the failure to ensure a timely neurological consult or to communicate delays in specialist availability constituted departures from accepted standards of care. The court further held that these issues extended to derivative and wrongful death claims, which were improperly dismissed once the underlying malpractice causes of action were reinstated. As a result, the court modified the lower court’s order and allowed the majority of the claims to proceed.
Speak with an Experienced Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney About Your Claims
When a hospital or medical provider fails to respond promptly to stroke symptoms, the consequences can be devastating for patients and their families. If you have questions about a potential stroke malpractice or wrongful death claim, it is advisable to talk to an attorney. The experienced Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers represent clients throughout Rochester, Syracuse, and New York State, and if you hire us, we will zealously advocate on your behalf. You can contact the firm at 833-200-2000 or visit online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.
