Procedural Setting and Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice action asserting departures from accepted medical practice and lack of informed consent against multiple physician defendants and a medical institution.

It is alleged that the plaintiffs failed to file and serve a certificate of merit with the complaint, as required by statute in medical malpractice actions.

Reportedly, one defendant served a formal demand requiring the plaintiffs to provide the certificate of merit within a specified period, and additional defendants later served similar demands when the plaintiffs did not comply.

It is reported that after the plaintiffs failed to respond to those demands, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on the absence of the required certificate.

Allegedly, the plaintiffs did not oppose the motions seeking dismissal, leaving the court to determine the appropriate remedy based on the procedural posture and governing law.

Procedural Requirements in Medical Malpractice Cases

The court began its analysis by examining the statutory framework governing certificates of merit in medical malpractice actions. The statute requires that a plaintiff’s attorney certify that they have reviewed the case and consulted with a qualified medical professional who believes there is a reasonable basis for the claim. This requirement is intended to deter frivolous lawsuits and promote efficiency in malpractice litigation.

Despite the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with this requirement, the court emphasized that the statute does not expressly authorize dismissal as a penalty for noncompliance. Unlike other procedural rules that explicitly provide for dismissal as a sanction, the certificate of merit statute is silent on such a remedy. As a result, courts must exercise discretion and rely on established case law when determining how to address violations.

The court noted that prior appellate decisions have consistently held that dismissal is not the automatic or preferred remedy for failure to file a certificate of merit. Instead, courts often provide plaintiffs with an opportunity to cure the defect, particularly where doing so would not prejudice the defendants. This approach aligns with the broader principle that procedural defaults should be addressed through remedies specifically authorized by statute or rule.

In evaluating the defendants’ motions, the court also addressed a procedural issue regarding how one group of defendants presented their request. Although their application was labeled as a cross motion, it was in substance a separate motion. The court treated this mislabeling as a technical defect and proceeded to consider the motion on its merits, noting that the plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the procedural irregularity.

Applying these principles, the court determined that dismissal of the complaint was not warranted at this stage. Instead, the appropriate course was to grant the plaintiffs additional time to comply with the statutory requirement. The court issued an order directing the plaintiffs to serve and file a certificate of merit by a specified deadline. The court further warned that failure to comply with this directive could result in sanctions, including potential dismissal upon a subsequent motion.

Speak to a Skilled Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney

If you sustained losses due to incompetent medical care, it is important to understand your rights, and you should speak to an attorney. The skilled Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can evaluate your case and assist you in seeking any damages you may be owed. Call 833-200-2000 or visit us online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.

]]> https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/court-explains-treatment-of-conflicting-evidence-in-new-york-medical-malpractice-cases/ Sun, 15 Mar 2026 17:10:21 +0000 https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/?p=2349 Birth injury cases often turn on complex medical judgments made during labor and delivery, particularly when high-risk factors are present and rapid decisions are required. Courts must carefully evaluate whether providers complied with accepted standards of care and whether patients were adequately informed of the risks. A recent New York case highlights how conflicting expert opinions can prevent dismissal of serious medical malpractice claims, especially in cases involving delayed surgical intervention and informed consent. If your family has been affected by a birth-related injury, you should consider speaking with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to better understand your legal options and protect your rights.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice action arising from the labor and delivery of an infant, asserting that the defendants failed to timely perform a cesarean section and improperly managed a trial of labor after a prior cesarean, resulting in a uterine rupture and catastrophic neonatal injuries.

It is alleged that the mother presented with multiple high-risk factors, including a prior cesarean section, advanced maternal age, and other medical conditions, yet was permitted to attempt a vaginal delivery with induction and augmentation of labor.

Reportedly, during labor, the mother experienced escalating pain, vaginal bleeding, irregular contractions, and repeated disruptions in fetal heart monitoring, while medical staff continued efforts toward vaginal delivery rather than immediately proceeding to surgery.

It is reported that a cesarean section was ultimately performed after signs of uterine rupture emerged, but the infant was born in critical condition, later suffering severe neurological injuries and ultimately passing away months later.

Allegedly, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that their care conformed to accepted medical standards and that any complications were not caused by departures from those standards, while the plaintiffs opposed the motion with expert evidence challenging both the treatment decisions and the adequacy of informed consent.

Court Treatment of Conflicting Evidence in Medical Malpractice Cases

The court began its analysis by outlining the legal standard governing summary judgment in medical malpractice actions. A defendant must establish either that there was no deviation from accepted medical practice or that any alleged deviation was not a proximate cause of the claimed injuries. This burden is typically met through detailed expert affirmations supported by the medical record.

The defendants presented expert testimony asserting that a trial of labor after cesarean was appropriate under the circumstances, emphasizing that vaginal delivery can present fewer risks than surgical intervention and that the patient had previously undergone a successful vaginal delivery after cesarean. Their expert further maintained that fetal monitoring remained reassuring for much of the labor process and that the decision to perform a cesarean section was timely once definitive signs of uterine rupture appeared.

The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs, who submitted a detailed expert affirmation directly challenging both the standard of care and causation. The plaintiffs’ expert opined that the patient’s multiple risk factors rendered her an unsuitable candidate for a trial of labor and that a cesarean section should have been recommended from the outset. The expert further asserted that the use of labor-inducing medication increased the risk of uterine rupture and was contraindicated under the circumstances.

The court gave considerable weight to the plaintiffs’ expert’s analysis of the clinical signs observed during labor. The expert identified multiple warning indicators, including persistent severe pain, vaginal bleeding, irregular contractions, and repeated gaps in fetal monitoring, all of which should have prompted earlier surgical intervention. The expert also challenged the timing of the cesarean section, suggesting that delays both in ordering and performing the procedure contributed to prolonged oxygen deprivation and resulting neurological injury.

In addition to the malpractice claims, the court addressed the issue of informed consent. The defendants contended that the patient had been adequately advised of the risks and alternatives associated with a trial of labor and had consented to the treatment plan. However, the plaintiffs’ evidence raised questions as to whether the patient was fully informed of the heightened risks associated with her specific medical profile. The court noted that conflicting testimony and expert opinions created factual disputes regarding what information was provided and whether a reasonably prudent patient would have made the same decision.

Because both sides presented competent, non-speculative expert opinions that sharply conflicted on key issues, including standard of care, timing of intervention, and causation, the court determined that these matters could not be resolved as a matter of law. Instead, they required credibility determinations that must be made by a jury. Accordingly, the court denied summary judgment on the remaining claims.

Consult with a Knowledgeable Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney

Birth injuries can have devastating and lasting consequences, and determining whether they resulted from preventable medical errors requires careful legal and medical analysis. If your child suffered injuries during labor or delivery, the knowledgeable Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can help you pursue accountability. Call 833-200-2000 or visit us online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.

]]> https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/court-explains-substitution-requirements-in-new-york-medical-malpractice-cases/ Sun, 22 Feb 2026 22:07:34 +0000 https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/?p=2345 Medical malpractice claims do not succeed on substantive allegations alone. Procedural compliance, particularly following the death of a party, plays a critical role in determining whether a claim may proceed at all. Courts strictly enforce rules governing substitution of parties and timeliness, and failure to act diligently can result in dismissal regardless of the underlying merits. A recent New York decision highlights how delays, insufficient expert support, and procedural missteps can derail a malpractice claim before it ever reaches trial. If you are considering pursuing a medical negligence claim, you should consult a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to discuss the substantive and procedural requirements of your case.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the claimant commenced an action seeking damages for medical malpractice arising from care rendered to a decedent at a state-operated medical facility.  Shortly after initiating the claim, the claimant died, and an executor was appointed to represent the estate, necessitating the substitution of a proper party to continue the litigation.

Reportedly, the court issued an order dismissing the claim after counsel failed to appear at multiple scheduled conferences, leaving the action in a procedurally vulnerable posture. More than two years after the claimant’s death, the executor moved to vacate the dismissal, lift the stay imposed due to the death, and substitute as the claimant, while the defendant cross-moved to dismiss based on failure to timely substitute. The trial court denied the executor’s motion and granted the defendant’s cross-motion, prompting an appeal challenging those determinations.

Substitution of Parties in Medical Malpractice Cases

On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing the strict procedural framework governing substitution under CPLR 1021 and the Court of Claims Act. The court explained that substitution is not a mere technical formality but a jurisdictional requirement that enables the court to properly proceed with a claim after a party’s death.

Under the applicable statutes, a personal representative must seek substitution within a reasonable time, and in the Court of Claims, within six months of appointment. The court evaluated whether the delay in seeking substitution was reasonable by examining factors such as diligence, prejudice to the opposing party, and the claim’s potential merit.

The court found that the executor failed to act with sufficient diligence. Despite being appointed within months of the claimant’s death, no timely effort was made to substitute into the action or revive the claim. The extended delay, combined with missed court appearances, weighed heavily against granting relief.

Notably, the court also determined that the case lacked merit. The executor submitted an expert affidavit in support of reinstating the action, but the court found it conclusory and insufficient. The affidavit failed to identify specific departures from accepted medical practice and did not adequately establish causation between the alleged negligence and the decedent’s injuries. Without a competent showing of merit, the request to revive the claim was further undermined.

Balancing these considerations, the court concluded that dismissal was appropriate. The lack of diligence, combined with insufficient evidentiary support, justified the denial of the motion to vacate and supported the granting of the defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Speak to an Experienced Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney

Medical malpractice claims require more than proof of negligence. They demand strict adherence to procedural rules, strategic case development, and timely action at every stage of litigation. Missing critical deadlines or failing to properly support a claim can result in dismissal before the merits are ever considered. If you or a loved one were harmed by incompetent medical care and you have questions about your rights, it is advisable to speak to an attorney. The experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can evaluate your case and aid you in seeking any damages you may be owed. You can call 833-200-2000 or contact the firm online to arrange a confidential consultation.

Factual Setting and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced an action seeking damages for medical malpractice arising from a surgical procedure in which the decedent sustained a serious vascular injury during a minimally invasive operation. The defendant performed a robotic-assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy during which a major vein was damaged, leading to complications that formed the basis of the malpractice claim.

Reportedly, the case proceeded to trial, where the plaintiff sought to introduce testimony from a board-certified general surgeon to establish the applicable standard of care and to allege departures from it during the procedure. The trial court granted the defendants’ oral motion to preclude the plaintiff’s expert from testifying on the ground that the expert lacked specific experience with robotic-assisted procedures, and subsequently granted an oral motion to dismiss the complaint.

Allegedly, a judgment was entered dismissing the action in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed the ruling.

Expert Qualifications in New York Medical Malpractice Cases

On appeal, the court reviewed whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in excluding the plaintiff’s expert and dismissing the complaint. The court emphasized the well-established principle that a medical expert need not be a specialist in the precise procedure at issue to offer an opinion on the standard of care, so long as the expert possesses the requisite knowledge, training, and experience.

Applying this standard, the court examined the qualifications of the plaintiff’s expert. The expert was a board-certified general surgeon with experience in adrenal and laparoscopic surgeries and demonstrated familiarity with the relevant anatomy and surgical principles. The expert further testified that core surgical practices, including the identification and protection of surrounding structures, remain consistent regardless of whether a procedure is performed using traditional, laparoscopic, or robotic techniques.

The court found that this foundation was sufficient to establish the expert’s competence to testify regarding the applicable standard of care. The trial court erred by focusing too narrowly on the expert’s lack of specific experience performing robotic-assisted adrenalectomies. The court clarified that such limitations affect the weight of the testimony, which is for the jury to evaluate, rather than its admissibility.

Because the exclusion of the expert effectively deprived the plaintiff of the ability to establish a prima facie case, the subsequent dismissal of the complaint was also improper. The court determined that the plaintiff should have been permitted to present the expert testimony and proceed with the case.

Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment, denied the defendants’ motions to preclude and dismiss, reinstated the complaint, and remitted the matter for a new trial.

Connect with a Dedicated Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney

If you were injured due to an improperly performed surgical procedure, it is wise to connect with an attorney regarding your potential claims. The dedicated Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers are adept at holding negligent healthcare providers accountable, and if you hire us, we will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can call us at 833-200-2000 or reach out online to arrange a confidential consultation.

Case Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff sought medical care from an internist after experiencing severe abdominal pain. During that visit, the physician ordered blood work and advised the plaintiff to arrange a computed tomography scan. The initial examination did not result in immediate emergency imaging, and the plaintiff was sent home pending further evaluation.

Allegedly, the following day, the physician contacted the plaintiff to discuss blood test results that showed elevated white blood cell and neutrophil levels. During that conversation, the plaintiff informed the physician that she had gone to an emergency department the prior evening and had been diagnosed with a urinary tract infection. The physician advised the plaintiff to obtain a CT scan if her symptoms worsened.

Reportedly, two days later, the plaintiff presented to a different emergency department, where she was diagnosed with acute appendicitis, peritonitis, and multiple abdominal abscesses. She was hospitalized for an extended period, during which abscesses were drained, and intravenous antibiotics were administered. Due to significant inflammation, an appendectomy could not be safely performed at that time.

It is alleged that several months later, the plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy that required additional procedures, including lysis of adhesions and partial removal of surrounding tissue. The plaintiff subsequently commenced an action asserting causes of action for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, alleging that the failure to timely diagnose appendicitis resulted in severe complications and prolonged treatment.

Reportedly, after discovery was completed, the defendants moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the medical malpractice claim. The trial court granted that portion of the motion and dismissed the claim, concluding that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff appealed.

Role of Expert Disputes in Medical Malpractice Claims

On appeal, the court reviewed the summary judgment determination under well-established standards governing medical malpractice claims. The court explained that to prevail on summary judgment, a defendant must demonstrate 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. If that showing is made, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to submit competent medical evidence raising a triable issue of fact.

The court noted that, in medical malpractice cases, summary judgment is generally inappropriate when the parties submit conflicting expert opinions on diagnosis, treatment, or causation. Competing expert affidavits often present issues that must be resolved by a factfinder rather than decided as a matter of law.

In this case, the defendants submitted expert opinion evidence asserting that the physician acted within accepted medical practice by not ordering an immediate CT scan, given the plaintiff’s reported symptoms and the absence of classic signs of appendicitis. The defense expert further opined that the plaintiff’s laboratory findings and symptoms were consistent with the urinary tract infection diagnosis she had received and that any delay in diagnosing appendicitis did not cause the plaintiff’s injuries.

The plaintiff, however, submitted expert opinion evidence directly contradicting those conclusions. The plaintiff’s expert opined that the presenting symptoms and laboratory abnormalities were consistent with acute appendicitis and required immediate diagnostic imaging to rule out that condition. The expert further concluded that the failure to order a stat CT scan allowed the infection and inflammation to progress, leading to abscess formation, prolonged hospitalization, and more complex surgical intervention.

The court determined that the plaintiff’s expert opinions were neither speculative nor conclusory and directly addressed both departure from accepted medical practice and proximate causation. Because the record contained sharply conflicting medical opinions, the court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. As such, the court reversed the judgment insofar as appealed from and reinstated the medical malpractice cause of action, allowing the claim to proceed.

Talk to an Experienced Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney

If you were hurt by a delayed diagnosis, it is important to understand your rights, and you should talk to an attorney. The experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers represent clients throughout Syracuse, Rochester, and Upstate New York. You can reach DeFrancisco & Falgiatano at 833-200-2000 or visit us online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.

Medical malpractice claims often hinge not only on whether a healthcare provider departed from accepted standards of care, but also on whether a plaintiff successfully navigates the procedural rules governing litigation. Courts are frequently asked to balance strict compliance with filing deadlines against the fundamental policy favoring resolution of claims on their merits. A recent New York ruling addressed whether a medical malpractice action should be dismissed based solely on a delay in serving a complaint, despite allegations of serious treatment-related injuries. If you experienced harm due to negligent medical care, you should consider speaking with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to better understand how procedural issues may affect your ability to pursue justice.

Case Background

It is reported that the plaintiff sought treatment at a hospital emergency department after sustaining a traumatic injury to a finger. During the course of that treatment, hospital staff discarded a severed portion of the finger, which allegedly compromised the plaintiff’s medical outcome and resulted in permanent injury.

Allegedly, the plaintiff instituted a medical malpractice action by filing a summons with notice in state court and later served it upon the defendant hospital. After appearing in the action, the defendant demanded service of a formal complaint pursuant to the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Under the applicable statute, the plaintiff was required to serve the complaint within a specified twenty-day period following that demand.

Medical malpractice and wrongful death litigation often involves deeply personal evidence, particularly when a surviving family member seeks accountability for the loss of a loved one. As social media becomes an increasingly common outlet for grief and emotional support, courts are frequently asked to determine how far discovery may reach into a plaintiff’s private online communications. A recent opinion issued by a New York court addresses whether posts made in a bereavement support group on social media are subject to disclosure in a malpractice and wrongful death action. If you are interested in pursuing malpractice claims, you should consider speaking with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to understand how discovery rules may affect your case.

Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the plaintiff commenced an action individually and as executor of the decedent’s estate seeking damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death arising from the decedent’s medical treatment and subsequent death. The defendants included physicians and hospital entities that provided care to the decedent prior to his passing.

Allegedly, during the course of discovery, the defendants sought to continue the plaintiff’s deposition and requested the production of certain messages the plaintiff had posted in a bereavement support group on a social media platform. The defendants asserted that these posts were relevant to issues of damages, including the plaintiff’s emotional condition and loss claims.

People pursuing malpractice claims against public hospitals and municipal healthcare systems must comply with strict procedural requirements that can determine whether a case is ever heard on the merits. One of the most significant hurdles is the timely service of a notice of claim, a prerequisite that often becomes contested in medical malpractice and wrongful death matters involving public entities. A recent decision from a New York court illustrates how courts analyze requests to file a late notice of claim and the consequences of failing to meet statutory standards. If you suffered harm due to medical negligence, you should talk to a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney, as it can be critical to protecting legal rights before procedural deadlines foreclose recovery.

Facts and Procedural History

It is reported that the decedent resided at a facility owned and operated by a municipal healthcare corporation for nearly a year. During that time, the decedent contracted COVID-19 while still a resident of the facility and was later transferred to a separate hospital for acute care.

Allegedly, after the transfer, the decedent’s condition deteriorated, and he died shortly thereafter. Several months later, limited letters of administration were issued appointing the decedent’s daughter as the estate representative, authorizing her to act on behalf of the estate.

When families bring loved ones to an emergency department, they trust that medical professionals will act in accordance with both accepted medical standards and the patient’s legally documented wishes. Situations involving advance directives can become especially complex when emergencies arise and critical decisions must be made in seconds. A recent decision from a New York court examines these issues in the context of chest compressions performed on a patient who had executed a Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment. If you or someone close to you has concerns about medical care provided in a hospital setting, it is essential to consult with an experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorney who can evaluate whether a patient’s rights were properly protected. 

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action as the limited administrator of the decedent’s estate after the decedent became unresponsive shortly after arriving at the defendant hospital’s emergency department with complaints including abdominal pain. Employees of the defendant performed chest compressions, unaware that the decedent had previously executed a Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment declining life-saving measures. The chest compressions revived the decedent but were alleged to have caused injuries, including rib fractures, and the decedent died several hours later from a subsequent cardiac event.

Reportedly, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant’s employees breached the standard of care by performing chest compressions in direct contravention of the MOLST, resulting in pain and suffering related to the injuries caused by the resuscitation efforts. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including the argument that the action stated a claim for “wrongful life,” was time-barred as a battery, and could not proceed absent a statutory cause of action for violating a MOLST. The trial court denied the defendant’s motions, allowing the matter to proceed. A jury later returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the court denied the defendant’s motions for a directed verdict and to set aside the verdict. The defendant then appealed.

Permissible Claims in a Medical Malpractice Case

On appeal, the defendant first challenged the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the action at the pleading stage. The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff’s claim amounted to an impermissible “wrongful life” cause of action. Instead, the court reasoned that the plaintiff properly asserted a medical malpractice claim seeking damages for the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering allegedly caused when the defendant’s employees exceeded the scope of the decedent’s consent. The court further concluded that the claim did not sound in battery because the employees were unaware of the MOLST at the time they administered chest compressions, placing the matter within the realm of negligence rather than intentional tort.

The defendant next contended that no private cause of action existed for violating a MOLST absent explicit statutory authorization. The court held that even if no statute creates such a right, claims of this nature may proceed under traditional common-law medical malpractice principles.

The court noted that the right of a competent adult to refuse medical treatment, even when the refusal may result in death, is firmly grounded in New York common law. Advance directives, including MOLSTs, are recognized means through which a patient may decline resuscitation, even in emergency circumstances. Although emergency conditions may affect the standard of care in a particular situation, they do not categorically relieve a provider of the obligation to honor a MOLST when reasonably aware of its existence.

The defendant also argued that it was entitled to statutory immunity for disregarding a MOLST during an emergency. Under New York law, providers may disregard a do-not-resuscitate order if, among other conditions, they believe in good faith that the patient has revoked the order or if significant medical circumstances justify disregarding it. The court found this argument inapplicable because the plaintiff did not allege that employees intentionally disregarded or believed the MOLST had been revoked. Instead, the employees were simply unaware of its existence.

The court ultimately agreed with the defendant, however, that the trial court erred in denying the motion for a directed verdict following the jury trial. Viewing the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the appellate court concluded that no rational jury could find in the plaintiff’s favor because the plaintiff failed to provide expert testimony establishing the applicable standard of care or identifying a deviation from that standard.

The plaintiff’s expert described various ways a hospital might communicate MOLST information, but did not articulate a recognized standard of care governing such situations, nor did he opine that the defendant’s employees violated any such standard under the circumstances presented. In the absence of essential expert proof, the plaintiff could not sustain a medical malpractice claim, and the court therefore reversed the judgment and dismissed the complaint.

Consult with a Knowledgeable Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney

Questions concerning advance directives, emergency medical care, and a patient’s right to refuse life-sustaining treatment can be legally and emotionally complex. If you believe that you or a loved one received treatment inconsistent with documented medical wishes, it is advisable to seek guidance from an attorney experienced in medical malpractice litigation. The medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can help you understand your rights and explore available legal options. Contact us at 833-200-2000 or online to schedule a free and confidential consultation. We proudly serve clients throughout Rochester and Upstate New York State.

Expectant parents rely on medical professionals to recognize complications, respond appropriately, and ensure the safety of both mother and child. When they fail to do so, it can lead to devastating injuries. Families impacted by birth injuries have the right to seek compensation, but whether they prevail depends, in part, on the evidence they offer in support of their claims, as demonstrated in a recent New York ruling. If your child suffered harm at birth, it is critical to understand your options, and you should speak to a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice and negligence action on behalf of the infant plaintiff and the mother, asserting that the defendants failed to meet the accepted standard of care leading up to an emergency Cesarean section. The plaintiffs contended that the mother suffered from a large uterine fibroid and preeclampsia, conditions that increased the risk of placental abruption, and that the defendant physicians should have acted differently in the days prior to delivery. They asserted that the mother should not have been discharged from the hospital five days before the infant’s birth and should have been admitted three days before delivery to ensure closer observation.

Reportedly, after the action was filed, the defendants moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims and cross-claims, arguing that their treatment decisions were medically appropriate. The plaintiffs sought multiple adjournments to respond to the motion, and although the defendants initially consented, they later objected as delays continued for approximately a year. The trial court granted additional extensions but ultimately sanctioned the plaintiffs for noncompliance and warned that the summary judgment motion would be granted with prejudice if the plaintiffs did not timely file opposition papers. When the plaintiffs failed to submit their response by the court-ordered deadline, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the scheduling directive.