History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent right carpal tunnel release and nerve transfer surgery by the defendant physician in December 2020. After limited improvement, the physician performed an additional ulnar nerve procedure in April 2021. The plaintiff continued outside therapy. In September 2021, the physician left the defendant orthopedic practice and later joined another institution.

Reportedly, the plaintiff visited another provider at the orthopedic practice in October 2021 but skipped the recommended follow-ups. Instead, he followed the physician to the new institution for visits in November and December 2021. At the final visit, the physician reviewed studies, discussed intervention for persistent hand problems, and recommended a return within three months. The plaintiff never scheduled another appointment.

It is alleged that the plaintiff continued therapy elsewhere, underwent corrective nerve surgery in May 2022, and returned to the orthopedic practice once in October 2022. On April 16, 2025, he sued the physician and practice over treatment ending in December 2021. The physician moved to dismiss the claims as untimely.

Applying the Continuous Treatment Doctrine

The court explained that a defendant seeking dismissal must first show that the filing period expired. New York generally requires a patient to commence a malpractice action within two years and six months of the challenged act or the last treatment in a continuous course of care. The physician met that burden because the plaintiff sued more than three years after their final visit.

The plaintiff then had to raise a factual question concerning continuous treatment. The doctrine requires ongoing care from the defendant for the same condition, with further treatment anticipated by both parties. Care by other group members may count after a physician leaves if the patient belonged to the practice rather than one provider.

The evidence showed that the plaintiff followed the physician individually. After the physician changed employers, the plaintiff declined follow-up care at the former practice and sought treatment at the new institution. His isolated return to the former practice could not be attributed to the physician, and no continuing agency relationship existed.

The court also found that listing the physician on therapy records did not establish supervision or agency. The recommendation to return within three months failed because the parties scheduled no appointment. Even using the end of therapy or later surgery, the April 2025 complaint remained untimely. The court dismissed the claims against the physician, leaving the practice as the sole defendant.

Discuss Your Case with an Experienced Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney

Strict filing deadlines can determine whether an injured patient has the opportunity to seek compensation for negligent medical care. If you experienced complications following orthopedic surgery or believe a provider mishandled your continuing treatment, you should talk to an attorney. The experienced the Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can assess your case and determine the deadline that may apply. Call 833-200-2000 or contact us through our online form to request a free, confidential consultation.

]]> https://www.rochestermedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/new-york-court-assesses-evidence-in-emergency-room-malpractice-case/ Fri, 07 Aug 2026 13:25:13 +0000 https://www.rochestermedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/?p=2129 A missed pulmonary embolism can transform a treatable condition into a life-threatening medical emergency. When a patient arrives at an emergency department with symptoms that may point to a dangerous blood clot, providers must decide whether the available evidence warrants advanced diagnostic testing. If providers do not order such testing, it may give rise to a medical malpractice claim. As a recent New York opinion demonstrates, the strength and specificity of expert testimony can determine whether the claim proceeds. If you suffered harm because health care providers failed to diagnose a serious condition promptly, you should speak to a Rochester medical malpractice attorney who can help you evaluate your rights.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff went to the hospital’s emergency department with pain and breathing-related concerns. Providers documented severe right rib or flank pain, normal cardiovascular and respiratory examinations, a negative chest X-ray, and no chest pain complaint. A resident considered kidney stones, while the defendant physician also considered infection, pulmonary embolism, and acute coronary syndrome. The physician concluded that the presentation did not suggest the latter two conditions and ordered further evaluation.

Reportedly, the defendant physician treated the plaintiff from approximately 6:20 a.m. until 8:00 a.m., then transferred care to the day shift. After reviewing abdominal CT results, later providers reassessed the possibility of pulmonary embolism. They ordered an EKG and a D-dimer test but declined to order a CT pulmonary angiogram, which uses contrast dye. The plaintiff returned to the hospital five weeks later, and providers diagnosed a pulmonary embolism.

It is alleged that failing to perform the angiogram during the first visit delayed diagnosis and caused avoidable injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment with records and expert opinions supporting their care and disputing causation. The plaintiff’s expert countered that his symptoms, imaging, and Wells score required further testing. The trial court denied dismissal as to both defendants, and they appealed.

Demonstrating Emergency Room Malpractice

On appeal, the court clarified New York’s medical malpractice summary judgment framework. A defendant must first show no departure from accepted practice or that any departure caused no injury. The plaintiff must then offer competent evidence creating a triable issue.

In the subject case, the hospital made the required initial showing, but the plaintiff’s expert raised factual disputes concerning its evaluation. The expert described extensive experience diagnosing pulmonary embolisms and explained that the presentation, a Wells score of 4.5, and elimination of kidney stones warranted an angiogram. He challenged the negative D-dimer test because providers administered it too soon. His view that earlier imaging could have reduced the injuries supported causation. The hospital’s radiology expert did not establish that first-visit imaging would have missed the condition.

The court reached a different conclusion for the defendant physician. The plaintiff’s expert relied heavily on chest pain that did not appear in the EMS report, triage notes, emergency records, or deposition testimony. He also failed to address evidence that the examination showed no movement or breathing limitations and did not answer the defense experts’ concern that contrast dye posed renal risks. The court therefore deemed his opinion speculative and hindsight-based.

The court also found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate causation as to the defendant physician,  because later providers completed the workup and independently chose not to order the angiogram after the physician’s shift ended. As such, the court modified the order by dismissing the complaint against the physician and otherwise affirmed, leaving the claims against the hospital for further proceedings.

Seek Help from a Rochester Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney

If negligent emergency care or a delayed diagnosis caused your injuries, you may have grounds to pursue a medical malpractice claim, and you should speak with an attorney promptly. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, our dedicated Rochester medical malpractice attorneys understand the devastating consequences of diagnostic errors. If we represent you, we will carefully investigate your treatment, consult qualified medical professionals, and fight for the compensation you deserve. Contact our office through our online form or call 833-200-2000 today to schedule a free and confidential consultation.

]]> https://www.rochestermedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/new-york-court-explains-discovery-rule-in-cancer-malpractice-cases/ Wed, 15 Jul 2026 15:16:12 +0000 https://www.rochestermedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/?p=2123 Patients harmed by a delayed cancer diagnosis often do not discover the negligence until long after the opportunity for early treatment has passed. Historically, many valid medical malpractice claims were dismissed because the statute of limitations expired before the patient learned that a healthcare provider failed to recognize the signs of cancer. New York’s enactment of the cancer discovery rule significantly changed that landscape by allowing certain delayed diagnosis claims to proceed even when they otherwise would have been untimely. A recent New York ruling demonstrates how the statute’s revival provision can preserve a patient’s right to pursue compensation for negligent failure to diagnose cancer. If you or a loved one suffered harm because a healthcare provider failed to timely diagnose cancer, it is in your best interest to speak with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney about your rights as soon as possible.

Factual Setting and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice action asserting that two physicians failed to timely diagnose and treat the plaintiff’s breast cancer. The complaint alleged that the defendants did not recommend additional diagnostic testing, including a mammogram, when such testing was medically indicated, allowing the cancer to remain undetected. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that any claims arising from conduct occurring before December 11, 2015, as well as all claims against one physician, were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court agreed and dismissed those portions of the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Discovery Rule in Cancer Malpractice Cases

On appeal, the court reversed the trial ruling. In doing so, the court addressed whether New York’s cancer discovery rule and its statutory revival provision permitted the plaintiffs to pursue claims that otherwise would have been untimely under the traditional statute of limitations governing medical malpractice actions.

The court explained that, effective January 31, 2018, the New York Legislature enacted a discovery rule specifically addressing negligent failures to diagnose cancer or a malignant tumor. The legislation not only created a new limitations framework for qualifying claims but also included a revival provision designed to restore certain claims that previously had become time-barred. The revival statute reflects the Legislature’s recognition that patients frequently do not discover a delayed cancer diagnosis until long after the ordinary limitations period has expired.

Applying the statute to the facts before it, the court determined that the alleged malpractice occurred when the defendants failed to advise the plaintiff to undergo additional diagnostic testing, including a mammogram. Although the claims ordinarily would have accrued at that time, the court concluded that they qualified for revival because they became time-barred within the ten months identified by the statute before its effective date. The plaintiffs also commenced the action before the statutory revival deadline established by the Legislature. As a result, the court held that the trial court improperly dismissed the claims as untimely.

Meet with a Trusted Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney

If you or someone you love suffered harm because a healthcare provider failed to timely diagnose breast cancer or another form of cancer, the experienced Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can evaluate your claim and determine whether you may still have the right to pursue compensation. Contact our office through our online form or call 833-200-2000 today to schedule a complimentary and confidential meeting.

]]> https://www.rochestermedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/new-york-court-examines-duties-imposed-on-surgeons/ Mon, 06 Jul 2026 15:42:41 +0000 https://www.rochestermedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/?p=2126 Successful surgery begins long before the first incision. Physicians must evaluate available medical records, review appropriate diagnostic imaging, and develop a surgical plan that accounts for a patient’s individual anatomy. When a surgeon proceeds without obtaining information that could materially affect the procedure, serious complications may result, giving rise to a medical malpractice claim. A recent New York decision illustrates how disputes over preoperative planning and informed consent can prevent dismissal of a malpractice action before trial. If you suffered injuries because of negligent surgical planning or treatment, it is advisable to meet with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to discuss your rights.

Fact of the Case and Procedural Posture

Allegedly, the defendant surgeon performed gallbladder removal surgery on the plaintiff. During the operation, however, the surgeon was unable to locate the plaintiff’s gallbladder. A subsequent MRI revealed that the plaintiff did not have a gallbladder. The plaintiff thereafter commenced a medical malpractice action alleging, among other things, that the surgeon departed from accepted medical practice by failing to obtain preoperative imaging, including a CT scan or MRI, that would have disclosed the absence of the gallbladder before surgery. The plaintiff also asserted a claim based on lack of informed consent. Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of both causes of action, and the trial court denied the motion. The defendant appealed.

Duties Imposed on Surgeons

On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment. The court first reviewed the standards governing medical malpractice actions, explaining that a physician seeking summary judgment must establish either that there was no departure from accepted medical practice or that any alleged departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s injuries.

Once the defendant satisfies that burden, the plaintiff must present competent expert evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine factual dispute. The court reiterated that summary judgment generally is inappropriate where qualified medical experts offer conflicting opinions supported by the medical record because those credibility determinations belong to the jury.

Applying those principles, the court concluded that although the defendant initially established a prima facie entitlement to judgment through expert testimony supporting the appropriateness of the surgical care, the plaintiff successfully raised triable issues of fact.

The plaintiff’s expert specifically opined that accepted medical practice required the surgeon to review the available medical records and confirm that the plaintiff actually had a gallbladder through appropriate preoperative CT or MRI imaging before undertaking gallbladder removal surgery. According to the plaintiff’s expert, the failure to perform those steps constituted a departure from accepted surgical practice and directly caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

Because the parties’ experts reached conflicting conclusions regarding both the standard of care and causation, the appellate court held that those issues could not be resolved as a matter of law and instead required determination by a jury.

Speak with an Assertive Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney

If you were injured by a negligently performed surgery, you have the right to pursue a medical malpractice claim, and you should speak to an attorney. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, our assertive Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys understand how to evaluate complex surgical negligence claims, and if we represent you, we will advocate zealously on your behalf. Contact our office through our online form or call 833-200-2000 today to schedule a confidential and free consultation.

]]> https://www.rochestermedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/new-york-court-discusses-shields-from-medical-malpractice-liability/ Fri, 12 Jun 2026 17:59:41 +0000 https://www.rochestermedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/?p=2121 The COVID-19 pandemic placed extraordinary demands on hospitals and healthcare providers throughout New York, prompting lawmakers to enact temporary legal protections for medical professionals responding to the public health emergency. Those protections, however, did not automatically shield every healthcare provider from liability. Instead, courts must carefully examine whether a patient’s treatment was actually affected by pandemic-related conditions and whether the provider’s conduct falls within the statute’s scope. A recent New York decision demonstrates how courts evaluate these issues when deciding whether a medical malpractice claim may proceed. If you believe you suffered injuries because of negligent medical care, you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to determine whether emergency immunity laws may affect your case.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant hospital in April 2020 after experiencing fever, respiratory symptoms, and an abnormal electrocardiogram. He tested positive for COVID-19, later required mechanical ventilation, and remained hospitalized for several weeks before being discharged to a rehabilitation facility. During his hospitalization, he developed pressure ulcers and other tissue injuries. Shortly after his discharge, he returned to the hospital because of additional medical complications and again tested positive for COVID-19 before ultimately returning to rehabilitation.

Reportedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action against the hospital and several physicians, asserting that they departed from accepted standards of medical care by failing to prevent and treat his pressure ulcers properly. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that they were immune from liability under New York’s Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act because the plaintiff’s care occurred during the height of the COVID-19 emergency when hospital operations were significantly affected by staffing shortages, resource limitations, and emergency treatment protocols. The plaintiff opposed the motion, contending that the defendants’ conduct constituted gross negligence and therefore fell outside the statute’s protections.

Emergency Immunity in Medical Malpractice Cases

The court examined the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act, which temporarily protected healthcare facilities and medical professionals from liability for certain care provided during the COVID-19 public health emergency. To establish immunity, the defendants were required to demonstrate that they acted in good faith while providing healthcare services and that the plaintiff’s treatment was impacted by decisions or conditions arising from the pandemic in support of the state’s emergency response.

The defendants supported their motion with detailed affirmations from hospital nursing administrators describing the unprecedented circumstances facing the hospital during the first wave of COVID-19. The evidence established that intensive care units operated far beyond normal capacity, nurses cared for substantially more critically ill patients than usual, specialized equipment became scarce, and additional infection-control procedures consumed significant time and resources. According to the defendants, these extraordinary conditions directly affected the hospital’s ability to implement routine pressure ulcer prevention measures.

The court concluded that this evidence satisfied the defendants’ burden of establishing entitlement to statutory immunity. The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to demonstrate that an exception applied. Although the plaintiff submitted expert testimony criticizing the medical care, the court determined that the opinions merely alleged departures from accepted standards of care and failed to establish conduct rising to the level of gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or other statutory exceptions. The court found the expert’s conclusions to be largely conclusory and unsupported by the medical record.

Because the defendants demonstrated that the plaintiff’s treatment was directly affected by the extraordinary conditions created by the COVID-19 emergency, and the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to support an applicable exception, the court dismissed the claims against the hospital and the moving physicians. The decision illustrates that while emergency immunity is not absolute, plaintiffs must present substantial evidence demonstrating conduct beyond ordinary medical negligence to overcome the protections afforded by the statute.

Discuss Your Claim with a Skilled Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney

If you or someone you love has suffered serious harm because of negligent medical treatment, it is advisable to talk to an attorney. The skilled Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers are prepared to evaluate your case, explain your legal options, and advocate for the recovery you deserve. Contact us through our online form or call 833-200-2000 today to schedule a free and confidential consultation.

]]> https://www.rochestermedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/new-york-courts-evaluate-conflicting-expert-reports-in-medical-malpractice-case/ Sat, 06 Jun 2026 17:58:48 +0000 https://www.rochestermedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/?p=2119 Medical malpractice lawsuits often involve complicated medical issues that require expert testimony to help courts determine whether healthcare providers complied with accepted standards of care. When qualified experts disagree about what happened or whether a provider acted negligently, those disputes generally must be resolved by a jury rather than a judge. This was illustrated in a recent New York decision in which conflicting expert opinions prevented the defendants from obtaining summary judgment, allowing the injured patients to proceed to trial. If you or a loved one suffered harm because of negligent medical care, you should promptly speak with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to discuss your legal rights and potential claims.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent a medical abortion and later experienced prolonged heavy bleeding, anemia, and other complications. She continued receiving follow-up care from her obstetrical providers, where blood testing eventually revealed critically low hemoglobin levels. The plaintiff contended that her healthcare providers failed to timely recognize and respond to her worsening condition, delayed communicating life-threatening laboratory results, and failed to properly diagnose retained products of conception and infection. After her condition deteriorated, she was admitted to a hospital, underwent additional treatment, and later experienced respiratory complications that ultimately resulted in severe neurological injuries.

Reportedly, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against multiple healthcare providers, asserting that numerous departures from accepted medical practice caused her injuries. Following discovery, several defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the medical care they provided complied with accepted standards and that none of their actions caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff opposed the motions by submitting expert opinions challenging the defendants’ evidence and identifying numerous departures from accepted medical practice.

It is reported that the court granted only limited portions of certain motions, dismissing informed consent claims and a narrow group of allegations against one defendant. The court otherwise denied summary judgment for most defendants after determining that genuine factual disputes required resolution by a jury.

Conflicting Expert Opinions Create Questions for the Jury

The court began by reviewing the standards governing summary judgment in New York medical malpractice actions. A defendant seeking dismissal must first demonstrate either that there was no departure from accepted medical practice or that any alleged departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s injuries. Once that initial burden is satisfied, the plaintiff must present competent expert evidence establishing a factual dispute that warrants a trial.

Although several defendants submitted detailed expert affirmations supporting the care they provided, the plaintiff responded with experts who presented opposing opinions. The plaintiff’s obstetrical expert disputed whether the patient’s symptoms were properly evaluated, questioned whether additional testing should have been performed sooner, challenged the adequacy of efforts to notify the plaintiff about critically abnormal laboratory findings, and opined that different treatment decisions could have prevented further complications.

The plaintiff also presented expert testimony criticizing aspects of the emergency airway management that followed the plaintiff’s hospitalization. Those experts disputed whether physicians acted promptly, whether appropriate monitoring occurred during the emergency procedure, and whether delays in treatment contributed to the plaintiff’s neurological injuries.

Rather than deciding which experts were more persuasive, the court emphasized that summary judgment is generally inappropriate when qualified experts present competing opinions supported by the medical record. The court explained that credibility determinations and the weighing of conflicting expert testimony are functions reserved for a jury. Because both sides submitted admissible expert opinions supported by evidence, material questions remained regarding the applicable standard of care, whether healthcare providers deviated from that standard, and whether those alleged departures caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

As a result, the court concluded that most of the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims should proceed to trial, allowing a jury to evaluate the competing medical opinions and determine liability.

Meet with a Trusted Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney Today

If you or someone you love suffered serious injuries because of substandard medical care, you should meet with an attorney to discuss your legal options. The trusted Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers have the experience and resources needed to help you seek the compensation you deserve. Complete our online contact form or call 833-200-2000 today to schedule a free, confidential consultation.

]]> https://www.rochestermedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/new-york-court-addresses-expert-testimony-requirements-in-medical-malpractice-cases/ Thu, 14 May 2026 16:55:42 +0000 https://www.rochestermedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/?p=2116 Medical malpractice cases frequently turn on competing expert opinions regarding whether a healthcare provider departed from accepted standards of care and whether any alleged negligence caused a patient’s injuries. As a result, courts closely scrutinize expert submissions, particularly when a party seeks to defeat a motion for summary judgment. A recent New York ruling demonstrates the importance of presenting expert testimony that is both reliable and sufficiently tailored to the medical issues in dispute. If you lost a loved one due to negligent medical treatment, it is important to understand your legal rights, and you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the decedent was receiving outpatient dialysis treatment at the defendant’s facility in August 2018 when he suffered a fall. Following the incident, he was transported to a hospital, where medical providers performed a CT scan of his head before discharging him later that same day. The decedent subsequently returned to the dialysis facility for additional treatments, and no significant concerns were documented over the next several weeks.

It is alleged that on September 13, 2018, the decedent displayed signs of confusion during a dialysis appointment. He was later evaluated at a hospital, where a second CT scan revealed the presence of a subdural hematoma. The decedent remained hospitalized and ultimately passed away on September 27, 2018. Following his death, the plaintiff commenced an action seeking damages for medical malpractice, wrongful death, and related claims against the dialysis facility and others.

Reportedly, after discovery concluded, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not depart from accepted standards of care and that its conduct did not proximately cause the decedent’s injuries or death. The plaintiff opposed the motion and, in part, relied on a radiologist’s expert report to demonstrate the existence of disputed factual issues.

It is reported that the trial court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the claims asserted against the dialysis facility. The plaintiff appealed, contending that the expert evidence submitted in opposition to summary judgment was sufficient to require a trial.

Expert Qualifications and Causation Evidence in Medical Malpractice Actions

On appeal, the court examined the standards governing summary judgment in medical malpractice litigation. The court explained that a defendant seeking dismissal must establish either that there was no departure from accepted medical practice or that any alleged departure was not a proximate cause of the claimed injuries. Once that burden is satisfied, the plaintiff must present competent expert evidence creating a genuine factual dispute.

The court first determined that the defendant met its initial burden. The evidence submitted by the facility demonstrated that its conduct did not proximately cause the injuries that ultimately led to the decedent’s death. As a result, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to present admissible and persuasive expert proof establishing a triable issue of fact.

The court disagreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s expert report was inadmissible. Nevertheless, the court found that the report was insufficient to defeat summary judgment. The court emphasized that although a physician does not always need to practice in the exact specialty at issue, an expert must possess the education, training, knowledge, or experience necessary to render a reliable opinion on the subject matter being addressed.

Here, the plaintiff relied on a radiologist to criticize the interpretation of the decedent’s CT scan. The court found that the expert failed to establish a sufficient foundation demonstrating expertise in neuroradiology, the specific area implicated by the claims. Without that foundation, the expert’s opinions lacked probative value.

The court further concluded that the expert report was conclusory because it failed to directly address and rebut the detailed opinions offered by the defendant’s experts. New York courts require experts opposing summary judgment to explain their reasoning and tie their conclusions to specific evidence in the record. Because the plaintiff’s expert failed to do so, the report did not create a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claims against the dialysis facility. The decision underscores that successful medical malpractice claims often depend not only on the existence of expert testimony but also on the expert’s qualifications and the thoroughness of the analysis.

Speak with an Experienced Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney About Your Rights

Medical malpractice claims frequently involve complex medical evidence and expert testimony that can determine whether a case proceeds to trial. If you believe that negligent medical care caused serious injuries or the death of a loved one, it is important to seek experienced legal guidance as soon as possible. The skilled Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers have extensive experience handling complex healthcare negligence claims and fighting for injured patients and their families. You can contact us through our online form or by calling 833-200-2000 to schedule a free and confidential consultation.

]]> https://www.rochestermedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/new-york-court-clarifies-limits-on-expanding-nursing-home-liability-claims/ Fri, 08 May 2026 15:08:29 +0000 https://www.rochestermedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/?p=2114 Medical malpractice and wrongful death cases involving nursing homes often raise questions about whether plaintiffs can broaden their claims as litigation progresses. While courts generally permit parties to clarify allegations and provide additional factual details, they distinguish between amplifying existing claims and introducing entirely new legal theories. A recent New York decision highlights this important procedural rule and explains why plaintiffs cannot use a supplemental bill of particulars to add a new statutory cause of action that was not included in the original complaint. If you lost a loved one due to negligent medical care in a nursing home or rehabilitation facility, you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims.

Factual and Procedural Background

Allegedly, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice and wrongful death action against a rehabilitation and healthcare facility and other defendants after the death of their adult son. According to the complaint, the decedent resided at the facility and regularly received care there. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants failed to properly administer a course of Heparin and that this failure caused the decedent to suffer cardiac arrest in September 2017, resulting in his death shortly thereafter.

Factual and Procedural Background

Allegedly, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice action seeking damages on behalf of an infant plaintiff, claiming that the defendants failed to properly diagnose and treat a fracture in the child’s leg, resulting in a limb length discrepancy.

It is alleged that the injury occurred when the infant plaintiff was approximately four years old and that the defendants’ failure to provide appropriate medical care caused long-term complications affecting the child’s growth and development.

Reportedly, during the course of litigation, the plaintiffs moved for a protective order seeking to prevent the infant plaintiff from being deposed and to block the disclosure of certain medical and pharmacy records, arguing that such discovery was improper or unnecessary.

It is reported that the trial court denied those branches of the plaintiffs’ motion, allowing both the deposition of the infant plaintiff and the disclosure of the requested records. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging the scope of permissible discovery in the malpractice action.

The Scope of Discovery in Medical Malpractice Cases

On appeal, the court examined the principles governing discovery in civil litigation, emphasizing that parties are entitled to full disclosure of all material and necessary information relevant to the prosecution or defense of an action. Trial courts possess broad discretion in supervising discovery, and their determinations will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion.

The court first addressed the plaintiffs’ attempt to prevent disclosure of certain medical and pharmacy records. A party seeking a protective order must demonstrate that the requested materials are irrelevant, overly broad, or otherwise improper. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet this burden. They did not establish that records from other treating providers were unrelated to the injuries at issue, nor did they demonstrate that the requests for pharmacy records were vague or excessively burdensome. As a result, the court concluded that the requested materials were properly discoverable.

The court then considered whether the infant plaintiff could be deposed. While courts recognize the need to protect young or vulnerable witnesses, they also acknowledge that testimony may be necessary to fully develop the factual record. The court determined that the infant plaintiff was competent to testify and that the plaintiffs failed to show that a deposition would be inappropriate under the circumstances. The court also found no requirement for a preliminary competency hearing before permitting the deposition.

In affirming the trial court’s decision, the court reinforced that discovery rules are applied broadly in medical malpractice actions, particularly where multiple potential causes or contributing factors may exist. Access to comprehensive medical records and firsthand testimony is essential for evaluating both liability and causation.

Because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the requested discovery was improper or that the deposition should be precluded, the court affirmed the order in its entirety, allowing the case to proceed with full disclosure.

Consult a Capable Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney

If your child was injured by incompetent medical care, you may be owed damages, and you should talk to an attorney as soon as possible. The capable Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers are dedicated to helping families pursue justice, and if you hire us, we will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact us through our online form or at 833-200-2000 to schedule a confidential and free conference.

]]> https://www.rochestermedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/court-discusses-breaches-of-the-standard-of-care-in-new-york-medical-malpractice-cases/ Mon, 06 Apr 2026 16:02:17 +0000 https://www.rochestermedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/?p=2108 Surgical malpractice cases often center on whether physicians took appropriate steps to identify and protect critical anatomical structures during procedures. Even when a complication is known, courts must determine whether it resulted from accepted risks or from preventable errors in technique, monitoring, or judgment. A recent New York ruling demonstrates how conflicting expert opinions regarding surgical conduct can prevent dismissal and require a jury to resolve key issues of negligence and causation. If you suffered a life-altering injury following surgery, you may be owed damages, and it is in your best interest to meet with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible.

Factual History and Procedural Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action seeking damages for injuries sustained during a surgical procedure, claiming that the defendants caused permanent vocal cord damage following a parathyroidectomy.

It is alleged that the plaintiff underwent surgery to address a diagnosed endocrine condition and that the procedure was performed by a primary surgeon with assistance from a resident physician. The plaintiff later developed persistent hoarseness and was ultimately diagnosed with vocal cord paralysis, which did not resolve.

Reportedly, the defendants moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint, arguing that the surgery was properly performed, that all appropriate precautions were taken to avoid nerve injury, and that the complication was a known risk of the procedure.

It is reported that the plaintiff opposed the motion, asserting that the defendants departed from accepted medical standards during the surgery and that these departures caused the nerve injury. The court considered the parties’ submissions, including expert affirmations, to determine whether summary judgment was appropriate.

Demonstrating Deviations From the Standard of Care

The court began by outlining the governing standards for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action. A defendant must establish either that there was no departure from accepted medical practice or that any alleged departure was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. This showing must be supported by competent medical evidence, typically in the form of a detailed expert opinion.

The defendants satisfied their initial burden by presenting expert testimony affirming that the surgery was appropriately performed and that nerve-monitoring techniques were used to reduce the risk of injury. The expert also emphasized that vocal cord paralysis is a recognized complication that can occur even in the absence of negligence. Based on this showing, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact.

The plaintiff met this burden by submitting a competing expert opinion that directly challenged the adequacy of the surgical technique and intraoperative precautions. The plaintiff’s expert identified several alleged departures from accepted practice, including failure to identify the recurrent laryngeal nerve during the procedure properly, improper use of nerve-monitoring technology, and deficiencies in anesthesia administration that could interfere with nerve detection.

The court found these assertions sufficient to create factual disputes requiring resolution by a jury. The plaintiff’s expert explained that proper visualization and continuous monitoring of the nerve are essential safeguards during this type of surgery, and that failing to employ them could increase the risk of undetected injury. The expert further opined that the manner in which anesthesia was administered may have compromised the reliability of monitoring equipment, potentially masking warning signs of nerve damage.

The court also addressed the role of the assisting resident, noting that, while supervised medical personnel are generally not liable absent independent negligence, issues of fact existed as to whether the resident’s actions in administering anesthesia constituted a separate departure from accepted practice. Because the evidence suggested the resident may have exercised independent judgment in that aspect of care, summary judgment was not appropriate.

Given the conflicting expert opinions on both standard of care and causation, the court concluded that the issues could not be resolved as a matter of law. Questions of credibility and the weight of expert testimony are reserved for the trier of fact. Accordingly, the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the core malpractice claims, allowing the case to proceed to trial.

Protect Your Interests with a Skilled Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney

Surgical errors and preventable complications can have devastating and permanent consequences, particularly when critical structures like nerves are involved. If you were injured by a negligently performed surgical procedure, it is smart to talk to an attorney about how you can protect your interests. The skilled Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers have the experience and resources to evaluate complex cases, and if we represent you, we will advocate aggressively on your behalf. You can reach us via our online form or call us at 833-200-2000 to schedule a free, confidential consultation.

]]>