Case Setting

Allegedly, a patient received care at a nursing and rehabilitation facility and later died. Her representative claimed that negligent medical care at the facility caused the death. The opinion does not detail the specific treatment decisions or explain the medical cause of death, so the appellate ruling turns on the parties’ proof rather than on a full clinical narrative.

Reportedly, the representative filed suit in March 2021 against the facility operator and other defendants. The claims against the operator included medical malpractice, negligence, wrongful death, a nursing home resident-rights claim under Public Health Law section 2801-d, and negligence per se. The operator’s expert reviewed medical records and deposition testimony and concluded that the care met accepted practice and violated no applicable regulation. As such, the operator moved for summary judgment. The trial court refused to dismiss the claims against the operator, and the operator appealed.

How the Court Assessed the Facility Claims

To succeed on a medical malpractice claim, a plaintiff must show a departure from accepted medical practice that caused injury. Thus, to obtain summary judgment, the facility first had to show proper care or a lack of causation. If it met that burden, the plaintiff needed evidence creating a genuine factual dispute about the element the facility addressed. Here, the court held that the operator’s expert made the required initial showing through a review of the records and testimony.

The plaintiff’s expert response did not meet the burden of proof, however. The court found it conclusory and speculative and observed that it did not address specific opinions in the defense expert’s analysis. In doing so, the court explained that an expert’s disagreement must explain why the evidence supports a different conclusion. Because that explanation was missing, the court dismissed the malpractice claim against the operator. The court also dismissed the negligence and wrongful death claims because they depended on the same asserted malpractice.

The resident-rights claim required proof of injury from the deprivation of a right conferred by law, regulation, rule, or contract, subject to a facility-care defense. The operator’s expert stated that no applicable state or federal regulation had been violated. The plaintiff’s expert cited facts the record did not support or contradicted and offered only general statements about regulatory violations.  The court found that response insufficient to preserve the statutory claim.

Finally, negligence per se would have required violation of a state statute imposing a specific duty. The operator initially showed that it had violated no such statute, and the plaintiff did not identify evidence creating a trial issue. As such, the court reversed the trial court’s order and dismissed the complaint as to this operator.

Consult a Knowledgeable Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney

Families may need to examine treatment records, facility rules, and the precise basis for each claim after an injury or death in long-term care. If your loved one suffered harm in a nursing facility, it is important to understand your rights, and you should speak with an attorney. The knowledgeable Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can inform you of your options and help you to seek the justice you deserve. Call 833-200-2000 or contact the firm online for a free, confidential consultation. The firm serves Syracuse, Rochester, and communities throughout Upstate New York.

]]> https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/new-york-court-discusses-late-notice-in-birth-injury-cases/ Wed, 16 Sep 2026 23:02:09 +0000 https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/?p=2377 A medical malpractice claim against a public hospital can face an early procedural hurdle: the notice of claim. Filing late may put the lawsuit at risk even before a court considers whether malpractice occurred, but some claims can survive despite a late filing. This was demonstrated in a recent New York decision in which the court permitted a late notice in a case involving an infant’s claimed birth injury despite a gap in the hospital’s early knowledge of the alleged malpractice. If you are considering a claim against a public hospital, it is advisable to consult promptly with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about the applicable notice rules.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, an expectant mother received prenatal care at a public hospital in 2020. During a September examination, staff detected a slowing fetal heartbeat and admitted her to induce labor. Months after the infant left the hospital, the child received a diagnosis of cystic encephalomalacia. The mother stated that hospital staff had previously described the symptoms she observed as normal and that she learned of the condition only after seeking additional medical opinions in March 2021.

Reportedly, the mother and infant sought permission in December 2021 to serve a late notice of claim. They asserted that malpractice during the mother’s care caused the infant’s injuries. They supplied a proposed notice and the mother’s affidavit explaining the delay. The trial court denied their petition and effectively ended the proceeding. The petitioners appealed, asking the appellate court to permit the notice despite its lateness.

When Late Notice is Allowed in Claims Against Municipal Entities

New York’s General Municipal Law requires a notice of claim before certain actions against a public corporation. When deciding whether to allow late service, a court considers all relevant circumstances. Those include the explanation for the delay, whether the public entity learned the essential facts within 90 days or a reasonable time afterward, and whether the delay substantially prejudiced its defense. The claimant’s infancy and any connection between infancy and delay may also matter. No single factor automatically controls the outcome.

Here, the court found a reasonable excuse in the infant’s serious condition and the many medical appointments required while professionals assessed it. The child’s infancy had a meaningful connection to the delayed filing. The court also examined what the hospital knew from its own records. It concluded that the petitioners had not shown that those records gave the hospital timely knowledge that its staff had caused an injury through malpractice. That point weighed against them, but it did not end the inquiry.

The hospital’s records documented the conduct at issue, giving the petitioners an initial basis to show that the late notice would not impair the hospital’s ability to defend itself. The hospital did not respond with a concrete showing of substantial prejudice. Weighing that evidence with the excuse and the infant’s circumstances, the court reversed the trial court’s decision, granted the petition, and deemed the proposed notice served.

Confer with a Capable Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney

Claims involving birth injuries and public hospitals may have notice deadlines in addition to rules governing the lawsuit itself. If you or a loved one suffered harm at a public hospital, it is in your best interest to confer with an attorney as soon as possible. The capable Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can inform you of your rights and help you to take the steps needed to protect your interests. Call 833-200-2000 or use the firm’s online form for a free, confidential consultation. We serve clients in Syracuse, Rochester, and throughout Upstate New York.

]]> https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/new-york-court-distinguishes-medical-malpractice-from-ordinary-negligence/ Fri, 28 Aug 2026 14:24:48 +0000 https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/?p=2375 Care in a nursing and rehabilitation facility can involve everyday safety obligations and specialized medical judgment. That distinction matters because a malpractice claim generally requires qualified expert evidence addressing professional standards. When the expert’s opinion is speculative or introduces a theory absent from the pleadings, the claim may end before trial. As a recent New York ruling shows, the substance of the challenged treatment, rather than its label, controls how a court evaluates it. If you or a loved one were harmed by negligent nursing or rehabilitative care, a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney can help assess your options.

Factual and Procedural Setting

Allegedly, the decedent received treatment from the defendant nursing and rehabilitation facility. He filed an action against the facility in June 2020, asserting causes of action including medical malpractice and ordinary negligence. After the decedent died, the plaintiff, acting as executor of his estate, replaced him as the party pursuing the claims. The opinion did not identify the specific treatment acts or omissions underlying the lawsuit.

Reportedly, the parties completed discovery, after which the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the malpractice and negligence claims. The defendant supported its motion with an affidavit from a physical therapist who reviewed the medical records, deposition testimony, and pleadings. The expert concluded that the facility’s treatment complied with accepted medical practice. The plaintiff opposed the motion with a separate expert affirmation.

It is reported that the trial court granted the portions of the defendant’s motion seeking dismissal of both causes of action. The plaintiff appealed, arguing in part that the challenged conduct supported a claim for ordinary negligence and that factual disputes prevented dismissal of the malpractice claim.

Distinguishing Medical Malpractice from Ordinary Negligence

On appeal, the court first considered the nature of the duty the defendant purportedly breached. Ordinary negligence applies when jurors can evaluate the conduct through common, everyday experience. Medical malpractice applies when resolving the dispute requires knowledge of medical science, professional skill, or clinical judgment. It also covers conduct that constitutes treatment or bears a substantial relationship to treatment provided to a particular patient.

The court determined that the challenged conduct substantially related to the medical treatment the defendant provided to the decedent. The claim therefore sounded in medical malpractice, even though the plaintiff also characterized the conduct as negligence. Because lay jurors would need more than ordinary experience to assess the facility’s decisions, the court upheld dismissal of the separate negligence cause of action.

The court then applied New York’s summary judgment standard for malpractice cases. A defendant must initially show that it did not depart from accepted care or that any departure did not cause the claimed injury. If the defendant satisfies that obligation, the plaintiff must produce competent evidence creating a factual dispute on the elements the defendant addressed. General accusations cannot meet that burden.

The defendant established its entitlement to dismissal through its expert’s detailed review and opinion that the treatment complied with accepted practice. In response, the plaintiff’s expert offered conclusions that the court deemed speculative and insufficiently supported. The expert also attempted to advance a new theory of liability that did not appear in the complaint or bill of particulars.

The court explained that a party cannot avoid summary judgment by introducing a materially different claim through opposition papers. The court therefore affirmed the dismissal of both causes of action and awarded costs to the defendant.

Meet with an Experienced Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney

Injuries in nursing and rehabilitation facilities require careful analysis of treatment records, professional standards, and expert testimony. If you believe substandard treatment harmed you or someone you love, you should meet with an attorney as soon as possible. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, our experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys can investigate your harm and aid you in pursuing the best outcome available. Call 833-200-2000 or contact us through our online form to schedule a free, confidential consultation.

]]> https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/new-york-court-evaluates-expert-proof-in-a-surgical-malpractice-claim/ Sat, 15 Aug 2026 13:54:16 +0000 https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/?p=2373 A hysterectomy can become far more dangerous when a nearby ureter sustains damage, causing leakage and additional treatment. A surgical complication alone, however, does not establish malpractice. Instead, an injured patient must present expert evidence identifying a departure from accepted practice and connecting it to the harm, which typically requires expert testimony. A recent New York opinion demonstrates, however, that expert testimony that relies on a theory contradicted by the operative record or ignores the defense explanation may not be sufficient to sustain a claim. If you sustained injuries during a gynecological surgery, it is in your best interest to consult a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to assess your potential claims.

Case Setting

Allegedly, the plaintiff underwent a hysterectomy at the defendant hospital to remove a cancerous tumor. Two defendant physicians performed the procedure. The plaintiff later sustained damage to her right ureter, the tube that carries urine from the kidney to the bladder, and developed leakage several days after surgery. She asserted that the defendants negligently failed to protect the ureter, injured it during the operation, and failed to perform appropriate postoperative testing.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action against several healthcare providers involved in the child’s delivery. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to timely perform a cesarean section during labor and that this delay caused the infant to sustain birth-related injuries.

It is reported that the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they did not depart from accepted medical practice and that their conduct did not cause the infant’s injuries. The trial court initially granted the motion and dismissed the claims against those defendants. The plaintiff then moved for leave to reargue, asserting that the court had overlooked the defendants’ improper reliance, in their reply papers, on a new argument that an in-house obstetrician had been notified of the patient’s condition and decided not to proceed with a cesarean section. Upon re-argument, the trial court vacated its prior ruling and denied summary judgment. The defendants appealed.

Summary Judgment in Birth Injury Cases

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court first explained that a motion for re-argument is properly granted when the court has overlooked or misapprehended controlling facts or legal principles.

Here, the trial court correctly determined that the defendants improperly advanced a new factual argument for the first time in their reply papers by asserting that an in-house obstetrician had been notified of the patient’s condition and made the decision not to perform a cesarean section. Because the plaintiff had no opportunity to address that theory through responsive papers, the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in granting re-argument and reconsidering its earlier ruling.

Turning to the merits of the medical malpractice claim, the appellate court reiterated that a defendant 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 patient’s injuries. Once that burden is met, the plaintiff must produce competent expert evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine factual dispute.

Although the defendants established a prima facie showing that their conduct did not cause the infant’s injuries, the plaintiff successfully rebutted that showing through detailed expert testimony. The plaintiff’s expert specifically opined that the cesarean section should have been performed sooner, that the delay constituted a departure from accepted obstetrical practice, and that the delay directly contributed to the infant’s birth injuries. The court emphasized that where qualified medical experts reach conflicting conclusions supported by the record, those disagreements present credibility determinations that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. Instead, they must be decided by a jury after considering the competing expert testimony and all of the surrounding evidence.

Because genuine issues of fact existed regarding both the timeliness of the cesarean section and whether any delay caused the infant’s injuries, summary judgment was properly denied.

Talk to a Dedicated Syracuse Birth Injury Lawyer

If your child sustained an injury at birth due to medical negligence, it is important to understand your rights, and you should speak with an attorney. At DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers, our dedicated Syracuse birth injury attorneys understand the complex medical and legal issues involved in birth injury cases, and if you engage our services, we will work tirelessly to pursue justice on your behalf. You can reach our office through our online form or call 833-200-2000 today to set up a free, confidential conference.

]]> https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/new-york-court-discusses-duties-imposed-on-emergency-room-doctors/ Fri, 10 Jul 2026 14:58:58 +0000 https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/?p=2369 Emergency physicians often focus on the condition that brings a patient to the hospital, but abnormal laboratory findings discovered during that evaluation cannot always be ignored. When test results suggest the presence of a potentially serious disease, the emergency physician may have a duty to recognize their significance, communicate those findings to the patient, and recommend appropriate follow-up care. A recent New York medical malpractice decision examined the duty an emergency physician has to respond to abnormal laboratory results. If you believe an emergency room doctor’s failure to diagnose or communicate a dangerous medical condition caused serious harm, you should speak with an experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorney.

Factual and Procedural History

Allegedly, the decedent sought treatment in a hospital emergency department after experiencing abnormal vaginal bleeding for approximately two weeks. During the evaluation, the emergency physician ordered laboratory testing that revealed a blood glucose level of 250 mg/dL, a result identified as abnormally high. After addressing the patient’s gynecological complaints, the physician discharged her with instructions to follow up with her obstetrician-gynecologist. Although she received copies of her laboratory results, the discharge instructions focused on her bleeding and did not specifically direct her to obtain further evaluation for her elevated glucose level.

It is reported that approximately six weeks later, the patient developed diabetic ketoacidosis and died. Her estate subsequently filed a medical malpractice action alleging that the emergency physician failed to recognize the significance of the abnormal glucose finding, failed to adequately advise the patient regarding its potential implications, and failed to recommend prompt follow-up with an appropriate physician for further testing and treatment. The emergency physician moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims.

Reportedly, the emergency physician supported the motion with expert testimony asserting that his treatment complied with accepted emergency medicine practice. The defense expert maintained that the patient’s elevated glucose level was merely an incidental finding discovered while evaluating her primary complaint of vaginal bleeding and that the standard of care required only outpatient follow-up rather than additional emergency testing or hospitalization.

It is alleged that the plaintiff opposed the motion with expert opinions asserting that the elevated glucose level represented a significant warning sign requiring clear verbal communication, documentation in the medical record, and an explicit recommendation that the patient promptly follow up with a primary care physician or endocrinologist for further diabetes evaluation.

Duties Imposed on Emergency Room Physicians

The court explained that a defendant seeking summary judgment in a medical malpractice action must establish either that there was no departure from accepted medical practice or that any alleged departure was not a proximate cause of the patient’s injuries. While competing expert opinions alone do not automatically defeat summary judgment, conclusory opinions or opinions resting on disputed factual assumptions are insufficient to eliminate material issues of fact.

Applying those principles, the court concluded that the emergency physician failed to satisfy his initial burden. The defense expert acknowledged that accepted medical practice required informing the patient about the elevated glucose level and recommending appropriate outpatient follow-up. However, the opinion that the physician complied with that standard rested almost entirely on the physician’s testimony regarding his custom and practice rather than on contemporaneous documentation showing that such advice was actually provided.

The emergency department records contained no notation that the elevated glucose level had been discussed with the patient. Likewise, although the patient received a copy of her laboratory results, the discharge instructions directed her only to follow up with her obstetrician-gynecologist. They did not refer to elevated glucose, diabetes, or the need to consult a primary care physician.

The plaintiff also testified that the only follow-up recommendation discussed during discharge concerned the gynecological appointment. Because the defense expert’s opinions depended upon disputed facts rather than documented evidence, the court found that they were insufficient to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

The court further determined that the plaintiff’s experts independently raised triable issues of fact. The plaintiff’s emergency medicine expert characterized the glucose level of 250 mg/dL as an alarming finding rather than an incidental laboratory abnormality and opined that accepted practice required the physician to document the result, explain its significance, and specifically recommend follow-up with a primary care physician or endocrinologist within one to two weeks.

An endocrinology expert further opined that timely diagnosis and treatment of diabetes likely would have lowered the patient’s blood sugar and prevented the diabetic ketoacidosis that ultimately caused her death. The court therefore denied the emergency physician’s motion to dismiss the medical malpractice claim.

Speak with an Experienced Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney

If you or a loved one suffered serious injuries because an emergency physician failed to recognize, communicate, or properly respond to abnormal test results, the experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can evaluate your case and explain your legal options. Contact our office through our online form or call 833-200-2000 today to set up a confidential and free conference.

]]> https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/new-york-court-discusses-how-errors-can-lead-to-a-new-medical-malpractice-trial/ Tue, 23 Jun 2026 18:06:21 +0000 https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/?p=2367 Medical malpractice cases often involve conflicting medical evidence that juries must carefully evaluate before reaching a verdict. Because jurors are responsible for resolving disputed factual issues, trial courts must ensure they have meaningful access to the evidence admitted during trial and provide appropriate guidance during deliberations. A recent New York opinion demonstrates that even when a jury’s factual findings are supported by the evidence, significant errors during deliberations may still require a new trial. If you or a loved one suffered injuries because of negligent medical care, you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to learn how procedural errors can affect the outcome of a medical malpractice case.

Factual and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice action against several healthcare providers, asserting that they failed to timely diagnose and treat an infant’s arachnoid cyst and failed to refer the child to a neurologist or neurosurgeon. The plaintiffs contended that these departures from accepted medical practice delayed appropriate treatment and ultimately caused the child to sustain permanent brain injuries.

Reportedly, following a jury trial, the jury determined that two of the defendants did not depart from accepted standards of medical care. The jury further found that another healthcare provider departed from the applicable standard of care by failing to make an appropriate specialist referral during one office visit, but concluded that the departure was not a substantial factor in causing the child’s injuries. The plaintiffs moved to set aside portions of the verdict and to request a new trial, arguing that errors during the trial prevented the jury from fairly considering the evidence. After the trial court denied that request, the plaintiffs appealed.

Grounds for Granting a New Trial

On appeal, the court first reviewed whether the jury’s finding on proximate cause was contrary to the weight of the evidence. The court explained that a jury verdict should not be disturbed if it can be reconciled with a fair interpretation of the evidence presented at trial. Where competing expert testimony exists, jurors are entitled to determine which expert they find more credible, and appellate courts generally defer to those credibility determinations.

Applying those principles, the court concluded that the jury reasonably could have determined that, although one healthcare provider departed from accepted medical practice, that departure was not a substantial factor in causing the child’s injuries. Accordingly, the court agreed that the verdict itself was supported by the evidence.

The court reached a different conclusion, however, when evaluating the trial court’s handling of the jury’s deliberations. During deliberations, the jurors asked to review MRI images that had been admitted into evidence during the trial. The trial court denied the request, reasoning that the images were beyond the understanding of ordinary jurors. The court determined that this response failed to meaningfully address the jury’s request because the MRI images had already been admitted into evidence and were properly available for the jury’s consideration.

Although the error did not affect the verdict in favor of the defendants who were found not to have departed from accepted medical practice, the appellate court concluded that it deprived the plaintiffs of a fair determination on the issue of whether the remaining defendant’s negligence caused the child’s injuries. As a result, the court ordered a new trial limited to the issue of proximate cause as to that defendant.

Let Skilled Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorneys Protect Your Rights

If you or a loved one has been harmed by negligent medical care, you have the right to seek compensation, and you should talk to an attorney. The skilled Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can advise you of your potential claims and formulate persuasive arguments on your behalf. Contact us through our online form or call 833-200-2000 to schedule a free and confidential consultation.

]]> https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/ruling-in-new-york-medical-malpractice-case-shows-importance-of-expert-testimony/ Thu, 18 Jun 2026 18:00:42 +0000 https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/?p=2365 Patients trust their healthcare providers to recognize warning signs of serious illnesses and promptly order appropriate testing or referrals. When a diagnosis is delayed, however, proving that the delay actually changed the patient’s outcome often becomes one of the most heavily contested issues in a medical malpractice lawsuit. A recent New York ruling highlights why detailed and well-supported expert testimony is essential for establishing both negligence and causation in delayed-diagnosis cases. If you believe a delayed diagnosis caused you or a loved one to suffer unnecessary harm, you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney to discuss your legal rights and potential remedies.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action against several healthcare providers, asserting that they failed to diagnose and treat multiple myeloma in a timely manner. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants departed from accepted medical practice by failing to recognize signs of the disease and that the delayed diagnosis caused significant injuries. During the litigation, the original plaintiff filed for bankruptcy, and the trustee of the bankruptcy estate was substituted as the plaintiff in the action.

Reportedly, after discovery concluded, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that their medical care complied with accepted standards of practice and that any alleged diagnostic delay did not cause the plaintiff’s injuries or alter the patient’s prognosis. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the claims against the moving defendants. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that disputed issues of fact required the case to proceed to trial.

Expert Testimony and Proximate Cause

On appeal, the court reviewed the well-established standards governing summary judgment in New York medical malpractice actions. The court noted that a defendant pursuing dismissal has to 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. If they meet that burden, the plaintiff then must present competent expert evidence specifically addressing the opinions offered by the defense experts and demonstrating that genuine factual disputes exist.

The court concluded that the defendants satisfied their initial burden by submitting expert affirmations explaining that the medical care provided complied with accepted standards and that any alleged delay in diagnosing multiple myeloma did not change the patient’s treatment options or prognosis. Those opinions directly addressed both the standard of care and the issue of causation, shifting the burden to the plaintiff.

The court determined that the plaintiff’s expert submission was insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Although the expert criticized aspects of the medical care, the opinion failed to meaningfully address the standard of care applicable to certain defendants and did not specifically rebut the defense experts’ conclusions regarding proximate cause. Instead, the expert relied on generalized and conclusory assertions that the delayed diagnosis caused injury without explaining how an earlier diagnosis would have changed the patient’s medical outcome.

The court emphasized that New York law requires expert opinions to do more than identify possible departures from accepted medical practice. When a delayed diagnosis forms the basis of a malpractice claim, the expert must specifically explain why the alleged delay caused additional injury or worsened the patient’s prognosis. Because the plaintiff’s expert failed to provide that analysis, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claims.

Meet with an Experienced Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney

If you or a loved one has been harmed by a delayed diagnosis or another form of medical negligence, you may be owed damages, and you should talk to an attorney. The experienced Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can assess your case and aid you in seeking the best outcome possible. Contact us through our online form or call 833-200-2000 today to set up a confidential and free meeting.

]]> https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/new-york-court-reinforces-requirements-for-reopening-dismissed-medical-malpractice-cases/ Mon, 18 May 2026 17:01:22 +0000 https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/?p=2360 Medical malpractice lawsuits are governed by strict procedural rules, and failing to comply with court orders can have serious consequences regardless of the merits of a claim. Courts expect litigants and their attorneys to actively prosecute their cases and attend scheduled conferences throughout the litigation process. A recent New York opinion demonstrates the challenges plaintiffs face in reviving a medical malpractice action after it has been dismissed for failure to appear in court. If you were harmed by negligent medical treatment, it is important to protect your rights from the outset, and you should speak with a Syracuse medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action in April 2021 arising out of physical therapy treatment provided by the defendants. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants’ care caused her injuries and sought damages through a civil lawsuit.

Reportedly, the litigation proceeded until a court-ordered conference scheduled for September 2022. Neither party appeared for the conference, and the court therefore directed that the action be dismissed without prejudice.

It is alleged that approximately one year later, in September 2023, the plaintiff moved to vacate the dismissal order and restore the action. The plaintiff sought relief from the prior order and requested that the malpractice case be permitted to proceed. The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to establish a valid basis for reopening the matter.

It is reported that the trial court denied the plaintiff’s request to vacate the dismissal. The plaintiff subsequently appealed, asking the appellate court to reverse the decision and restore the medical malpractice action.

When Can a Plaintiff Reopen a Dismissed Medical Malpractice Case?

On appeal, the court examined the standards governing motions to vacate defaults resulting from a party’s failure to appear at a scheduled court conference. Under New York law, a plaintiff seeking to reopen a dismissed action must satisfy a two-part test. First, the plaintiff must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default. Second, the plaintiff must show that the underlying claim possesses potential merit.

The court emphasized that determining whether an excuse is reasonable falls within the discretion of the trial court. While law office failures can sometimes justify relief, courts require detailed and credible explanations describing exactly why the default occurred. General neglect, oversight, or unsupported claims of error typically will not suffice.

After reviewing the record, the appellate court concluded that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not appearing at the scheduled conference. The court found that the explanation offered in support of the motion did not adequately justify the failure to comply with the court’s directive. Because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the first requirement necessary to vacate the default, the court determined that it did not need to analyze whether the medical malpractice claim itself had merit.

Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision denying the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal order. The ruling serves as a reminder that careful attention to procedural obligations is critical throughout every stage of a medical malpractice lawsuit.

Speak with a Dedicated Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney About Protecting Your Rights

Medical malpractice claims involve both complex medical issues and strict procedural requirements. Missing deadlines, failing to appear at court conferences, or overlooking important litigation obligations can jeopardize an otherwise valid claim. If you or a loved one suffered harm due to negligent medical care, the dedicated Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can evaluate your case and explain your legal options. We are committed to helping injured patients pursue the compensation they deserve. Contact us through our online form or call 833-200-2000 today to schedule a free and confidential consultation.

]]> https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/new-york-court-clarifies-when-medical-malpractice-plaintiffs-may-amend-their-claims/ Mon, 04 May 2026 17:07:10 +0000 https://www.syracusemedicalmalpracticelawyers.net/?p=2362 Medical malpractice litigation often evolves as expert review and discovery reveal additional information about the nature and extent of a patient’s injuries. As a result, disputes frequently arise over whether a plaintiff should be permitted to amend pleadings or bills of particulars to more accurately reflect the evidence developed during litigation. A recent New York decision illustrates the circumstances under which courts may allow such amendments and highlights the importance of demonstrating prejudice when opposing a request to conform pleadings to the proof. If you suffered injuries 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.

Factual and Procedural Background

Allegedly, the plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice action arising out of eye surgery performed by the defendant physician. The plaintiff contended that a phacoemulsification procedure caused numerous complications, including blurry vision, eye pain, headaches, double vision, visual distortion between the eyes, instability while walking, and the need for additional corrective surgery. The plaintiff maintained that these injuries resulted directly from negligent medical treatment.

Reportedly, the parties engaged in discovery, and the defendants later moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the action. The plaintiff successfully opposed those motions, and the court determined that material questions of fact existed regarding the treatment provided and the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

It is alleged that after the note of issue was filed, the plaintiff moved to conform her pleadings to the evidence developed during the litigation. Specifically, the plaintiff sought to amend the bill of particulars to identify additional injuries that her expert attributed to the surgery, including exacerbated glaucoma, pupillary injury, and aniseikonia, a condition involving a perceived difference in image size between the eyes.

It is reported that the trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the requested amendment merely conformed the pleadings to the proof and that the defendants would suffer no prejudice if the amendment were permitted.

Amending Pleadings to Conform to the Evidence in Medical Malpractice Cases

On appeal, the court examined the standards governing motions brought under CPLR 3025(c), which permits courts to amend pleadings to conform to the evidence. The court first rejected any argument that the dispute had become moot, explaining that a determination on the amendment would continue to have a direct and significant effect on the parties’ rights as the litigation progressed.

The court then turned to the merits of the plaintiff’s request. Under New York law, amendments that conform pleadings to the evidence are generally favored, particularly when they promote the resolution of disputes on their merits. A party opposing such a motion bears the burden of demonstrating actual prejudice resulting from the proposed amendment.

The court concluded that the defendants failed to meet that burden. The record contained no evidence that the proposed amendment hindered the defendants’ ability to prepare their defense or prevented them from taking steps necessary to support their position. The court emphasized that mere delay is insufficient to establish prejudice. Instead, a defendant must show that the amendment would place it at a meaningful disadvantage in the litigation.

The court also noted that the plaintiff expressed a willingness to permit additional discovery if the defendants believed further investigation was necessary to address the newly specified injuries. This further undermined any claim that the amendment would result in unfair surprise or prejudice.

Because the defendants failed to demonstrate that allowing the amendment would impair their ability to defend the case, the court determined that the trial court improperly denied the motion. The court therefore reversed the lower court’s order and granted the plaintiff’s request to conform the pleadings to the evidence.

The decision serves as an important reminder that New York courts generally favor resolving medical malpractice claims on their merits and will often permit amendments when they simply reflect evidence already developed during the litigation process.

Consult a Trusted Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney About Your Legal Options

Medical malpractice cases often involve evolving medical evidence and complex procedural issues that can significantly affect the outcome of a claim. If you suffered injuries because of negligent medical care, it is important to work with attorneys who understand both the medical and legal aspects of these cases. The trusted Syracuse medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers are dedicated to protecting the rights of injured patients and helping them pursue the compensation they deserve. Contact us through our online form or call 833-200-2000 today to schedule a free and confidential consultation.

]]>