Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

People suffering from drug addiction will often seek treatment at a healthcare facility. Typically, doctors oversee the care of patients in drug treatment facilities; as such, if a patient dies while going through the detoxication process, their surviving family members may pursue medical malpractice claims against the doctor in charge of the facility. Merely because a doctor works at a drug treatment facility does not mean that they have a doctor-patient relationship with everyone in the facility, however. This was demonstrated in a recent New York medical malpractice case in which the court found no such relationship existed and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. If you or a loved one sustained harm in the context of medical care, it is smart to meet with a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer about your options.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the decedent was undergoing treatment at a residential substance abuse facility in New York. The defendant was the attending doctor at the facility; however, he did not have any interaction with the decedent or communicate with her, and she was not his patient. Tragically, the decedent died due to complications from withdrawal. Her family subsequently filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging he negligently performed his duties, thereby causing the decedent harm. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and the court granted his motion, after which the plaintiff appealed.

Elements of a Medical Malpractice Case

The salient issue on appeal was whether the decedent and the defendant had a doctor-patient relationship. The court noted that such a relationship is typically a requirement for recovery in New York medical malpractice actions. While the defendant offered ample evidence that no such relationship existed, the plaintiff failed to offer a rebuttal. He did argue, however, that even if the defendant had no personal contact with the decedent, the defendant should be held liable for failing to properly oversee the medical and non-medical staff of the facility and the medical services they provided. Continue reading

Reproductive endocrinology is a complicated facet of medicine, and it is not uncommon for doctors practicing in this field to make oversights and errors. Even if the evidence clearly establishes missteps, though, they may argue that they did not commit malpractice or cause their patients to suffer any actual harm. This was shown in a recent opinion issued by a court in a reproductive endocrinologist malpractice case in which the court ultimately rejected the defendant’s request for dismissal via summary judgment. If you suffered losses due to medical errors, you may be owed compensation, and you should meet with a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is alleged that the plaintiffs sought fertility treatments from the defendant fertility institute. Two issues arose during their four-year course of care that caused them to pursue medical malpractice claims against the defendant. First, one of their embryos died prior to transfer, and a specimen deemed a special consideration embryo was transferred instead of a healthy embryo. The defendant argued that its actions did not constitute medical malpractice and that, in any event, the plaintiff did not suffer harm and moved for summary judgment.

Demonstrating Medical Malpractice in the Context of Reproductive Endocrinology

After reviewing the evidence, the court denied the defendant’s motion to the extent it related to the transfer of the embryos but granted it as to the allegations on which the plaintiff’s expert did not opine. In medical malpractice cases filed in New York, a plaintiff must prove the standard of care in the location where the treatment occurred, a breach of the standard of care on behalf of the defendant, and injuries proximately caused by the violation of the standard of care. Continue reading

It is not uncommon for people housed in federal facilities to undergo medical treatment for chronic and acute conditions. Unfortunately, the care they receive often falls below the acceptable standard, and rather than helping them, it harms them instead. In such instances, they have the right to pursue medical malpractice claims against the parties responsible for their harm. While medical malpractice claims are typically brought in state court, they may be filed in federal court if the plaintiff is also asserting claims that arise out of violations of federal statutes.

While federal courts have the right to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims in some circumstances, the plaintiff must show that such jurisdiction is proper, as demonstrated in a recent ruling issued in a New York medical malpractice case. If you were injured due to the carelessness of a doctor, it is advisable to meet with a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer to discuss whether you may be able to recover compensation.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Allegedly, when the plaintiff was detained in a federal facility, he sought medical care for an unspecified ailment. He was prescribed a painkiller that he stated caused him to suffer an upset stomach and other symptoms. The doctor nonetheless continued to prescribe him the medication, however. The plaintiff subsequently suffered a gastrointestinal bleed and lost consciousness on three occasions. During one episode, he had to undergo emergency surgery, after which he suffered from vision and mobility issues, migraine headaches, hypertension, and dementia. Continue reading

Discovery is a key element in medical malpractice matters, as in most instances, it is the best tool parties can use to obtain evidence to support their claims or defenses. Broadly speaking, any information that is relevant is discoverable. There is certain information that is protected from disclosure, though, such as statements made during a quality assurance or medical review meeting. Recently, a New York court explained when the quality-assurance privilege applies in a medical malpractice case in which the defendant objected to the plaintiff’s discovery requests. If you were hurt due to incompetent care that you received in a hospital, you may be owed damages, and you should talk to a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer as soon as possible.

The History of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent sustained brain trauma in a car accident, after which he was transported to the defendant hospital. The defendant doctors evaluated the decedent and determined he suffered a skull fracture, hemorrhaging, a subdural hematoma, and herniation of the brain. He was removed from life support and died a short time later.

Reportedly, the plaintiff filed medical malpractice claims against the defendants and submitted discovery requests seeking the medical reports, hospital records, and reports from peer review meetings. The defendants moved for a protective order on the grounds that the quality-assurance privilege protected peer review meeting minutes from disclosure. The court denied their motion, and they appealed. Continue reading

A doctor accused of medical malpractice will rarely admit liability. On the contrary, many health care providers named as defendants in medical malpractice lawsuits will ask the courts to dismiss the claims against them via a motion for summary judgment. Recently, a New York court discussed each party’s burden of proof with regard to motions for summary judgment in medical malpractice cases. If you were injured by the negligence of your healthcare provider, it is prudent to consult a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to evaluate what evidence you must produce to recover damages.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was transported via ambulance to the defendant hospital. When he was in the triage area, he began to seize. The defendant doctor examined the plaintiff, who shortly thereafter suffered a heart attack. He was resuscitated and transferred to the intensive care unit, where the doctors induced hypothermia. Two days after his admission, he was examined by the defendant vascular surgeon for compartment syndrome, as his legs were blue and rigid. He ultimately underwent a bilateral amputation of his legs above the knees.

Allegedly, the plaintiff and his file instituted claims against the defendants for lack of informed consent and medical malpractice. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law. The court granted their motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue reading