Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, a bus making a left turn struck a pedestrian in a Manhattan crosswalk in March 2017. The bus pulled her underneath, dragged her, and pinned her under a tire for about 20 minutes. She suffered extensive fractures, nerve injury, a ruptured bladder, and severe crush and skin injuries. She underwent emergency surgery, a lengthy hospitalization, rehabilitation, and suffered recurring infections, chronic pain, and psychological symptoms afterward. The patient continued to need substantial care, while her spouse became her principal caregiver.

The post How New York Courts Review Damages Awards in Personal Injury Cases appeared first on Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog.

A newborn’s first months of life should be filled with growth and milestones, not unanswered questions about a serious medical condition. Unfortunately, some birth-related injuries or acts of medical negligence are not immediately apparent, and families may spend months searching for answers before learning that a preventable error may have caused their child’s injuries. By then, parents may fear they have lost the opportunity to pursue a claim, particularly when treatment occurred at a public hospital with unique notice requirements. A recent New York decision examined whether hospital records and expert review justified treating a late notice as timely. If your child sustained injuries due to medical negligence, you should talk to a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney who can help you evaluate both the medical evidence and the deadlines that may apply to claims against public hospitals.

Factual and Procedural Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff gave birth prematurely at a public hospital in August 2015. The infant remained there until it was transferred to another hospital in September. Records described respiratory distress, episodes of apnea, a slowed heart rate, reduced oxygen levels, and red blood cell transfusions near the time of transfer. The plaintiff later maintained that excessive or contraindicated transfusions caused brain hemorrhages and congestive heart failure, with lasting conditions including cerebral palsy, blindness, seizures, and developmental delays.

The post New York Court Discusses Timeliness of Birth Injury Claim appeared first on Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog.

Facts and Procedural Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff entered the lobby of a dialysis clinic owned and operated by the defendant in December 2020. He later tripped over a fabric caution cone in the lobby and sustained injuries. The cone was bright yellow and approximately 30 inches tall, and the lobby and vestibule were well lit. Before the accident, the plaintiff had passed through the area where the cone stood without incident.

The post New York Court Discusses Evaluating an Open and Obvious Condition appeared first on Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action on behalf of her son after a pediatric office visit in November 2019. She asserted that the child sustained injuries during an inappropriate rectal examination. The defendant medical student, who was in the third year of training, participated in the examination while completing a clinical rotation at the defendant pediatric practice. A defendant physician supervised the student during the care.

Reportedly, the medical student sought summary judgment in September 2023, asking the trial court to dismiss the claims against him. The court initially denied the request without prejudice because of a jurisdictional defect, allowing the student to renew it. He subsequently filed a renewed request for dismissal and relied on deposition testimony concerning his role and the physician’s supervision.

It is reported that the trial court granted the renewed request in December 2024 and dismissed the complaint as to the medical student. The plaintiff appealed, seeking to restore the claims against him. The claims involving the remaining defendants were not at issue in the appeal.

Assessing the Liability of Supervised Medical Personnel

On appeal, the court examined the rules governing supervised medical personnel. A medical student or resident under an attending physician’s direction generally does not exercise independent judgment, even while taking an active role in care. The trainee therefore ordinarily avoids personal liability for following the supervisor’s instructions.

An exception may apply when the physician’s directions depart so dramatically from normal practice that the trainee should intervene. This demanding standard recognizes the subordinate role of trainees while preventing participation in plainly improper conduct. The central questions concern supervision, independent treatment decisions, and whether the instructions presented an obvious deviation from acceptable practice.

The medical student satisfied his initial summary judgment burden. His testimony and the physician’s testimony showed that he acted under supervision and did not depart from normal medical practice. Together, the testimony established a basis for dismissing the claims before trial.

Once the student made that showing, the plaintiff had to present evidence creating a genuine factual dispute about his independent judgment or a serious deviation that required intervention. The appellate court determined that the plaintiff did not meet that burden. It therefore affirmed the order granting summary judgment and awarded costs. Because that determination resolved the claims against the student, the court declined to consider the plaintiff’s remaining arguments. The ruling addressed only the student’s individual liability and did not state that every claim arising from the child’s care had been dismissed.

Talk to a Knowledgeable  Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney About Your Potential Claims

A medical injury involving a child demands a thorough review of every provider’s role, decisions, and level of supervision. If you believe negligent pediatric care harmed your child, you should talk to an attorney as soon as possible. The knowledgeable Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys of DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can inform you of your options and aid you in pursuing the best outcome available. Call 833-200-2000 or contact us through our online form today to schedule a free, confidential consultation.

The post New York Court Assesses the Liability of Supervised Medical Personnel appeared first on Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff sustained injuries after slipping and falling on a sidewalk owned by the defendant commercial property owner during the morning hours following overnight snowfall. The plaintiff commenced a personal injury action, asserting that the defendant failed to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the action should be dismissed under New York’s storm in progress doctrine because snowfall was continuing at the time of the accident and the defendant therefore had no legal duty to remove the accumulating snow or ice before the storm ended. determination.

Reportedly, the defendant relied on surveillance video showing the conditions immediately before the accident, along with testimony establishing that snow had fallen overnight and that employees had begun snow removal efforts during the early morning hours. The plaintiff argued that the evidence failed to establish the existence of an active storm sufficient to trigger the doctrine and maintained that factual disputes should have prevented dismissal of the case. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff appealed.

New York’s Storm in Progress Doctrine

On appeal, the court began by explaining that New York’s storm in progress doctrine generally relieves landowners of the duty to remove snow and ice until a reasonable period has passed after a storm ends. A defendant seeking summary judgment under the doctrine must first establish that a storm was actively occurring when the accident happened. If that burden is met, the property owner ordinarily cannot be held liable for failing to eliminate weather-related hazards before having a reasonable opportunity to do so.

The court further noted that light snowfall does not necessarily prevent application of the doctrine, and that the relevant inquiry focuses on whether the weather event remained ongoing rather than on the intensity of the precipitation.

Applying those principles, the majority concluded that the defendant met its burden. The surveillance video demonstrated that snow was falling when the plaintiff walked across the sidewalk, and the footage showed that the plaintiff created the only visible footprints in the accumulated snow.

The parties also agreed that snow had fallen overnight, and the plaintiff did not contend that the storm had already ended or that the icy condition predated the snowfall. Because the defendant established that the accident occurred during an active weather event, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to present evidence creating a factual dispute.

The court determined that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue regarding either the existence of a continuing storm or whether the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to remedy the condition after the weather ceased. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint.

Speak with an Experienced Syracuse Slip and Fall Attorney

If you or someone you love suffered injuries in a slip and fall accident caused by dangerous property conditions, it is important to understand that property owners are not always insulated from liability simply because snow or ice was present. The experienced Syracuse slip and fall attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers know how to evaluate whether a negligent property owner may be held responsible, and if you hire us, we will work tirelessly on your behalf. o Contact our office through our online form or call 833-200-2000 today to schedule a free, confidential consultation.

The post New York Court Discusses Storm in Progress Doctrine appeared first on Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the decedent had a lengthy history of substance abuse and received primary care from the defendants for several years. He also had paraplegia after a prior accident and later suffered significant burns to his legs. During treatment for those burns, a medical provider prescribed hydrocodone for pain. The prescriptions continued for more than a year, even though the patient had a known history of opioid misuse, received early refills, took benzodiazepines, and produced drug-screen results showing multiple controlled substances. Family members also expressed concern that the patient was engaging in drug-seeking behavior and had resumed abusing drugs.

Reportedly, the patient was found deceased in his home in July 2021, surrounded by drug paraphernalia and evidence of recent illicit drug use. The medical examiner attributed the death to acute intoxication caused by the combined effects of several substances, including hydrocodone, alprazolam, fentanyl, and norfentanyl. The estate commenced an action asserting medical malpractice, wrongful death, and related claims against the healthcare providers and the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The defendants moved for summary judgment, maintaining that the plaintiff could not prove that any prescribed medication caused or contributed to the death.

It is alleged that the plaintiff relied on expert opinions asserting that prescribing opioids together with benzodiazepines departed from accepted medical practice and increased the risk of respiratory depression. The plaintiff’s experts also maintained that the continued opioid prescriptions contributed to the patient’s renewed addiction and eventual overdose. The defendants’ toxicology expert, however, concluded that the prescribed hydrocodone and alprazolam were present at therapeutic, nonlethal levels and that the fentanyl concentration alone fell within a fatal range. The matter came before a federal magistrate judge for a report and recommendation on the summary judgment motions.

Causation in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

The court explained that a New York medical malpractice plaintiff must prove both a departure from accepted medical practice and that the departure proximately caused the claimed injury. A defendant may obtain summary judgment by establishing either that no departure occurred or that any departure did not cause the harm. Once the defendant makes that showing, the plaintiff must submit competent medical evidence raising a genuine factual dispute.

For purposes of the motions, the defendants did not rely primarily on whether the prescribing decisions met accepted standards. Instead, they argued that the plaintiff could not connect those decisions to the fatal overdose. Their expert reviewed the toxicology results substance by substance and concluded that the patient’s hydrocodone level was consistent with the prescribed dosage and far below an overdose level. He reached a similar conclusion regarding alprazolam and the other prescribed medications. By contrast, the fentanyl concentration was within the range associated with fatal overdoses, and the level of norfentanyl indicated that the patient consumed fentanyl shortly before his death. No defendant had prescribed that substance.

The court found the plaintiff’s expert submissions insufficient because they discussed the general dangers of combining opioids and benzodiazepines but did not address the lethal fentanyl concentration, the therapeutic levels of the prescribed medications, or the evidence of recent illicit fentanyl use. An expert opinion must confront the material medical evidence rather than rely on a generalized theory of risk. Because the plaintiff’s experts did not explain how the prescribed drugs remained a substantial factor despite the independently fatal fentanyl dose, the court characterized the plaintiff’s causation theory as speculative.

The court therefore recommended granting summary judgment to all defendants on the medical malpractice claim. It concluded that no reasonable factfinder could determine from the submitted evidence that the challenged prescriptions caused the death.

Consult a Knowledgeable Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney Today

If you or a loved one suffered serious harm because a medical provider negligently prescribed, combined, or monitored medications, obtaining a careful review of the medical records and expert evidence is essential. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, our knowledgeable Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys can assess your case and help you to determine your options. Contact our office through our online form or call 833-200-2000 today to schedule a free, confidential meeting.

The post Court Examines Causation in New York Medical Malpractice Cases appeared first on Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff suffered injuries after tripping over a raised section of sidewalk located within the defendant village. The plaintiff contended that the dangerous condition resulted from sidewalk repair work performed by the municipality. According to evidence submitted during the litigation, the plaintiff’s husband observed that the sidewalk had been improperly reinstalled, creating an uneven and unsafe walking surface. He further stated that he immediately contacted the municipality’s Superintendent of Public Works to report the hazardous condition after observing the completed repair.

Reportedly, the plaintiff filed a personal injury action seeking damages for the injuries sustained in the fall. The municipality moved for summary judgment, arguing that the lawsuit should be dismissed because it had never received the prior written notice ordinarily required before a municipality can be held liable for defects in public sidewalks. The municipality also argued that the sidewalk defect was too minor to constitute a dangerous condition. The trial court denied the motion, and the municipality appealed.

Exceptions to the Prior Written Notice Requirement

On appeal, the court explained that municipalities are generally protected from liability for sidewalk defects unless they receive prior written notice of the hazardous condition. Once a municipality establishes that no such notice was received, the burden shifts to the injured plaintiff to demonstrate that a recognized exception applies.

The court concluded that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding one of those exceptions. Specifically, New York law recognizes that prior written notice is not required when a municipality’s own affirmative negligence immediately creates the dangerous condition that causes the injury. The plaintiff relied on evidence indicating that municipal workers improperly reinstalled an existing sidewalk slab, leaving the walking surface uneven immediately after the repair work was completed.

The municipality argued that inconsistencies between the husband’s affidavit and his deposition testimony prevented the plaintiff from relying on that evidence. The appellate court rejected that argument, explaining that questions concerning the credibility of witnesses are reserved for the jury and generally cannot be resolved on a motion for summary judgment. Because a reasonable jury could conclude that the municipality’s repair work directly created the hazardous sidewalk condition, dismissal of the action was inappropriate.

The court also rejected the municipality’s contention that the sidewalk defect was too trivial to support liability. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the appellate court concluded that the municipality failed to establish as a matter of law that the condition was insignificant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, allowing the plaintiff’s personal injury claim to proceed toward trial.

Meet with a Trusted Syracuse Personal Injury Attorney Today.

If you or a loved one were injured in a slip or trip and fall accident brought about by another’s negligence, don’t wait to protect your rights. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, our trusted Syracuse slip and fall attorneys can assess your case and aid you in seeking the best outcome possible. Contact our office through our online form or call 833-200-2000 today to schedule a free, confidential consultation with an experienced personal injury attorney.

The post New York Court Discusses Notice in Personal Injury Cases appeared first on Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff sought emergency treatment after experiencing symptoms consistent with a gallbladder attack. Imaging studies revealed gallstones, and the defendant surgeon recommended the removal of the gallbladder. Following the laparoscopic procedure, the plaintiff developed jaundice and worsening symptoms. Additional testing performed at another medical facility revealed that surgical clips had obstructed the common bile duct, requiring reconstructive surgery to repair the injury.

Reportedly, the plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice action alleging that the defendants negligently performed the gallbladder surgery by failing to properly identify the patient’s anatomy before placing surgical clips, causing injury to the bile duct. The plaintiffs also asserted that the defendants failed to timely recognize and diagnose the postoperative complication. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were immune from liability under New York’s Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act because the COVID-19 pandemic affected hospital operations during the plaintiff’s treatment. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed.

The Limits of COVID-19 Immunity

On appeal, the court reviewed the requirements of New York’s Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act, which granted limited immunity to healthcare providers for certain care rendered during the COVID-19 public health emergency. The court explained that providers seeking the protection of the statute must establish that the alleged acts or omissions were actually impacted by decisions or activities undertaken in response to the pandemic.

The defendants presented evidence demonstrating that the hospital experienced substantial operational disruptions during the early months of COVID-19. Hospital officials described operating room closures, staffing shortages, delayed procedures, and the conversion of treatment areas to accommodate the surge of patients. The surgeon also testified that a robotic surgical system was unavailable because of pandemic-related changes, requiring the operation to be performed laparoscopically instead.

The court concluded, however, that this evidence did not establish the required connection between the pandemic and the alleged negligence. Although the surgeon stated that robotic surgery was his preferred approach, he also acknowledged that he had extensive experience performing laparoscopic gallbladder procedures, that he clearly visualized the relevant anatomy during surgery, and that COVID-19 did not change the manner in which he performed the operation. Likewise, the allegations involving the failure to recognize the postoperative bile duct injury were not shown to have resulted from pandemic-related conditions.

Because the defendants failed to demonstrate that the alleged surgical error or postoperative misdiagnosis was actually impacted by their response to COVID-19, they did not satisfy their initial burden of proving entitlement to statutory immunity. As a result, the appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, allowing the plaintiffs’ medical malpractice claims to proceed.

Talk to a Capable Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney Today

If you suffered harm due to negligent medical care, it is wise to talk to an attorney as soon as possible. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, our capable Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys can assess your case and aid you in seeking the best outcome possible. You can contact us through our online form or call 833-200-2000 to set up a free and confidential meeting.

The post New York Court Discusses the Limits of COVID-19 Immunity appeared first on Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog.

Factual and Procedural Background

Allegedly, the plaintiff visited a retail store in Brooklyn on the evening of June 27, 2021. As she walked through the store’s main checkout aisle toward the guest services area, she slipped and fell. After the accident, she learned that she had fallen on a spill consisting of baby food and broken glass.

Reportedly, the hazardous condition was created approximately thirteen minutes before the accident when another customer dropped a glass jar of baby food in the main aisle. Surveillance footage captured the spill remaining on the floor during the 13-minute period leading up to the plaintiff’s fall. During that time, several customers walked through the area, and some altered their paths to avoid the spill.

It is alleged that store employees were trained to identify and respond to dangerous conditions and that company policies required employees who observed spills to secure the area and arrange for immediate cleanup. The plaintiff nevertheless contended that the spill remained unaddressed despite its location in a heavily traveled area of the store.

It is reported that the plaintiff commenced a negligence action seeking compensation for injuries sustained in the fall. Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence. The plaintiff opposed the motion, asserting that factual disputes required resolution by a jury.

Constructive Notice and Hazardous Conditions on Commercial Property

In evaluating the motion, the court first addressed whether the defendant had actual notice of the spill. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to present evidence demonstrating that store employees were directly informed of the condition or otherwise became aware of it before the accident. As a result, the plaintiff could not establish actual notice.

The court then turned to the issue of constructive notice. Under New York law, a plaintiff may establish constructive notice by showing that a dangerous condition was visible and apparent and existed for a sufficient period of time to permit the property owner to discover and remedy it. The parties agreed that the spill was visible and apparent. The primary dispute concerned whether the 13-minute period between the spill and the accident was sufficient to allow employees to discover the hazard.

The defendant argued that 13 minutes was insufficient as a matter of law. The court rejected that position, noting that the analysis depends heavily on the surrounding circumstances. Unlike many cases in which plaintiffs could not establish how long a hazard existed, surveillance footage here clearly demonstrated that the spill remained on the floor for thirteen minutes before the accident.

The court also emphasized additional evidence supporting the plaintiff’s position. The spill occurred in a busy main aisle near checkout areas where employees frequently worked. Surveillance footage showed multiple customers maneuvering around the spill during the relevant time period. The record further demonstrated that security personnel and other employees were working in nearby areas of the store.

According to the court, a reasonable jury could conclude that employees exercising reasonable care should have discovered the spill before the plaintiff’s fall. The visibility of the condition, its location in a heavily trafficked section of the store, the actions of customers avoiding the spill, and the presence of employees in the vicinity collectively created a triable issue regarding constructive notice.

Because factual disputes remained regarding whether the defendant should have discovered and remedied the spill, the court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and allowed the negligence claim to proceed toward trial. The decision underscores that constructive notice questions are often fact-intensive and frequently must be resolved by a jury rather than a judge.

Speak with a Skilled Syracuse Personal Injury Attorney About Your Premises Liability Claim

Property owners and businesses have a duty to maintain reasonably safe premises for visitors, and failures to address known or discoverable hazards can result in serious injuries. If you were hurt in a slip and fall accident or another incident caused by unsafe property conditions, you may be entitled to compensation for your medical expenses, lost income, and other damages. The skilled Syracuse personal injury attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers are committed to helping injured people pursue the recovery they deserve. Contact us through our online form or call 833-200-2000 today to schedule a free and confidential consultation.

The post New York Court Analyzes Constructive Notice in Slip and Fall Cases appeared first on Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action against a hospital arising out of treatment provided to the decedent during a hospitalization. The plaintiff contended that the hospital failed to provide appropriate care while transporting the decedent from the emergency department to another area of the facility and that the alleged failures contributed to serious injuries and ultimately the decedent’s death.

Reportedly, during the transfer, hospital personnel utilized an Ambu bag and monitored the decedent’s vital signs. The plaintiff later asserted that the care provided during the transfer fell below accepted medical standards and caused the decedent to experience hypoxia and other complications.

It is alleged that following discovery, the hospital moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the medical malpractice claims. In support of its motion, the hospital submitted expert testimony addressing both the applicable standard of care and causation. The plaintiff opposed the motion with expert affirmations challenging the hospital’s treatment.

It is reported that the trial court denied the hospital’s motion, finding that issues of fact remained for a jury to resolve. The hospital appealed, arguing that the plaintiff’s expert submissions were legally insufficient to defeat summary judgment.

The Role of Expert Testimony in Establishing Medical Malpractice Claims

On appeal, the court examined whether the hospital established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and whether the plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute requiring a trial. The court first determined that the hospital satisfied its initial burden through expert testimony demonstrating that its treatment complied with accepted standards of care and did not proximately cause the decedent’s injuries.

The hospital’s expert explained that using an Ambu bag while monitoring the decedent’s vital signs during the transfer was appropriate and consistent with accepted medical practice. The expert further noted that the transfer itself was documented as uncomplicated and that any decrease in oxygenation occurred after the transfer had been completed.

The court then analyzed the plaintiff’s expert submissions. With respect to the standard of care, the court found that the plaintiff’s expert failed to explain why the use of the Ambu bag was improper. Although the expert referenced testimony suggesting that bagging may have occurred intermittently, the expert did not explain why continuous bagging was required or identify a specific standard that had been violated.

The court also concluded that the plaintiff’s causation opinions were deficient. The hospital’s expert provided detailed explanations regarding the decedent’s condition, including evidence that respiratory issues following the transfer were attributable to pneumonia and mucus plugs and that the decedent ultimately died months later from the progression of ALS. The plaintiff’s experts offered opinions regarding hypoxia and injury but failed to directly address the hospital expert’s conclusions or explain why those opinions were incorrect.

The court emphasized that expert opinions must do more than assert disagreement. To create a triable issue of fact, experts must specifically address the opposing expert’s reasoning and provide a detailed explanation supported by the evidence. Because the plaintiff’s experts relied on conclusory assertions and failed to rebut key portions of the hospital’s expert testimony, the court determined that the plaintiff had not raised a genuine factual dispute.

Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court’s decision and granted summary judgment dismissing the medical malpractice claim. The ruling serves as a reminder that carefully prepared expert testimony is often essential to the success of a medical malpractice action.

Consult an Experienced Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney About Your Potential Claim

Medical malpractice cases frequently involve complicated medical issues that require persuasive expert testimony and careful legal analysis. If you believe that negligent medical care caused serious injury or the loss of a loved one, it is important to seek experienced legal representation as soon as possible. The experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers understand the challenges these cases present and are committed to helping clients pursue the compensation they deserve. Contact us through our online form or call 833-200-2000 today to schedule a free and confidential consultation.

The post New York Court Court Emphasizes the Importance of Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Cases appeared first on Syracuse Personal Injury Law Blog.