Published on:

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

Published on:

When a person dies after receiving medical care, their loved ones may assert that their death was the result of medical malpractice. While sudden death following a health issue is undoubtedly tragic, it is not always the result of the negligence of the healthcare provider that provided the treatment. Thus, if a court finds that a plaintiff has not met their burden of proof, it may deny their efforts to have their claims against the defendant resolved in their favor as a matter of law. This was demonstrated in a recent New York ruling issued in a hospital malpractice case. If you lost a loved one due to incompetent care in a medical facility, it is advisable to consult a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer regarding your rights.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent visited the defendant hospital to treat an unspecified issue. The decedent subsequently developed complications and ultimately passed away. The plaintiff then filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging it negligently caused the decedent harm and was responsible for her death. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, but the court denied his motion.

Reportedly, the case proceeded to trial, and the jury issued a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff then moved to set aside the jury verdict as against the weight of the evidence, but the court denied that motion as well. The plaintiff subsequently filed an appeal. Continue reading

Published on:

Medical malpractice lawsuits involve complex issues, and both injured parties and the healthcare providers that allegedly caused their harm must rely on expert testimony to prove their positions. While such testimony is generally permitted in medical malpractice cases, courts must act as gatekeepers to ensure that both the testimony and the expert proffering it meet the applicable standards. Recently, a New York court discussed the inquiry conducted when a party challenges the sufficiency of expert testimony in a surgical malpractice case in which the plaintiff sought to preclude the defendant’s expert. If you sustained losses because of the negligence of a doctor, you may be owed compensation, and you should meet a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer to discuss your claims.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the decedent was undergoing treatment for colon cancer when it was discovered that she had lesions on her liver. Her oncologist referred her to the defendant surgeon, who recommended that she undergo an ablation to eradicate the tumors. The defendant performed the procedure, after which the decedent began experiencing swelling and diminished blood flow to the liver. The decedent ultimately developed liver failure and passed away.

Reportedly, the plaintiff, the decedent’s husband, filed a lawsuit against the defendant asserting medical malpractice, wrongful death, and lack of informed consent claims. After discovery, the parties filed cross-motions; in the plaintiff’s motion, he asserted that the defendant’s medical expert should be precluded from testifying at trial. Continue reading

Published on:

Thorough and attentive care is vital during pregnancy. Unfortunately, oversights made by careless OB-GYNs are common and often lead to adverse consequences for both expectant mothers and their unborn children. Families harmed by medical negligence can pursue claims against the parties responsible for their losses, but providers will often try to evade liability, and the matter will ultimately become a battle of the experts. Recently, a New York court explained the burden of proof imposed on each party in an OB-GYN malpractice case in which it ultimately determined the plaintiff set forth sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. If you or your child were harmed by incompetent care during your pregnancy, you have the right to pursue damages, and you should contact a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is reported that the plaintiff was referred to the defendant for care during her pregnancy due to the fact that she was of advanced maternal age and suffered from chronic hypertension and was therefore deemed to be high risk. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to control her blood pressure during her pregnancy despite knowing her pre-existing conditions.

Allegedly, the defendant also neglected to admit the plaintiff to the hospital when she showed signs of pre-eclampsia and pregnancy-induced hypertension, which ultimately resulted in a premature birth and harm to her child. As such, she filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. The defendant moved for dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims through summary judgment, but the court denied her motion. She then appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

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

Published on:

Medical malpractice cases are very fact-specific, and demonstrating liability requires an intricate understanding of the law and applicable medical standards. As such, even if it seems that a doctor clearly caused a patient to suffer harm, the patient must produce competent expert evidence to support their claims, otherwise, they may be dismissed. This was demonstrated recently in a ruling set forth by a New York court in a gynecological malpractice case, in which the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims on the grounds that her expert opinion was insufficient. If you were harmed by a routine gynecological procedure, it is smart to speak to a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer to determine your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Harm

Allegedly, the defendant performed a myomectomy on the plaintiff to remove uterine fibroids. During the surgery, the plaintiff suffered a second-degree burn due to an electrocautery device. She subsequently filed a medical malpractice complaint against the defendant, alleging the defendant’s negligence caused her harm. The defendant requested dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims via a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Sufficiency of Expert Opinions in Medical Malpractice Cases

The salient issue on appeal was whether the plaintiff’s expert report was adequate to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The appellate court ultimately determined that it was not and affirmed the trial court ruling. The court explained the well-established rule that if a defendant seeks dismissal through a motion for summary judgment, they bear the burden of establishing the lack of a departure from the accepted and good practice of medicine or that the plaintiff did not suffer harm due to any alleged departure. Continue reading

Published on:

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

Published on:

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

Published on:

Generally, parties in a medical malpractice case anticipate that jurors will render a fair verdict after considering the evidence presented at trial. While juries generally meet this expectation, at times, they can issue verdicts that do not comport with a fair reading of the evidence. In such instances, either party can ask the court to set aside the verdict and either issue judgment in their favor or order a new trial. Recently, a New York court evaluated when it is appropriate to grant a motion to set aside a verdict in a birth injury case in which the jury found the defendants liable for the plaintiff’s harm. If your child sustained losses at birth because of a doctor’s carelessness, it is advisable for you to contact a Rochester medical malpractice lawyer to evaluate what claims you may be able to pursue.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff mother visited the hospital in the late stages of her pregnancy due to decreased fetal movement. She was examined by the defendant doctors and discharged. The next day, though, she underwent an emergency cesarean section to deliver the plaintiff son. The plaintiff son suffered numerous deficits, which the plaintiff mother asserted was because of the negligence of the defendant doctors.

Allegedly, the plaintiff mother filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant doctors, seeking damages both individually and on behalf of her son. A trial was conducted, after which the jury issued a verdict finding that the defendants were liable and granting the plaintiff damages. The defendant doctors then filed a motion asking the court to set aside a verdict and either order a new trial or issue a judgment in their favor. The court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed. Continue reading

Published on:

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

Justia Lawyer Rating
Contact Information