Medical Malpractice

Published on: March 20, 2023

Court found that medical professionals failed to diagnose breast cancer in a timely fashion. Johnson v. New York Methodist Hospital, 69 N.E.3d 1045 (N.Y. 2016)

by Stephen Bilkis

Johnson v. New York Methodist Hospital involved a medical malpractice claim against New York Methodist Hospital and several of its doctors. The plaintiff, Darilyn Johnson, alleged that the defendants failed to diagnose and treat her breast cancer in a timely manner, causing her cancer to metastasize and become more difficult to treat.

The case was significant for several reasons. First, it raised important questions about the standard of care that doctors and hospitals must meet when diagnosing and treating cancer. Second, it highlighted the challenges that plaintiffs face in proving medical malpractice claims in New York. Finally, it underscored the importance of expert testimony in medical malpractice cases.

Facts of the Case

Published on: March 15, 2023

In a medical malpractice case, the Court discussed the standard for determining a doctor’s standard of care. O’Connor v. Grace Hospital, 283 N.E.2d 540 (N.Y. 1972)

by Stephen Bilkis

O’Connor v. Grace Hospital was a landmark case in medical malpractice law that shaped the legal standards for establishing a doctor’s duty of care and the scope of that duty. The case involved the plaintiff, Mrs. O’Connor, who was suffering from severe abdominal pain and was admitted to Grace Hospital in New York City. The defendant, Dr. Cahill, performed a laparotomy, which is a surgical procedure that involves making an incision in the abdominal wall to gain access to the abdominal cavity. During the surgery, Dr. Cahill mistakenly cut Mrs. O’Connor’s common bile duct, causing her to suffer significant complications and prolonged pain.

Discussion

Mrs. O’Connor filed a lawsuit against Dr. Cahill and Grace Hospital, alleging that they had breached their duty of care to her by failing to exercise reasonable care during the laparotomy. The case went to trial, and the jury found in favor of Mrs. O’Connor, awarding her $100,000 in damages. Dr. Cahill and Grace Hospital appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court had erred in its instructions to the jury regarding the standard of care and causation.

Published on: March 13, 2023

Healthcare providers breached the standard of care by failing to address fetal distress. Marlowe v. Staten Island University Hospital, 864 N.Y.S.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

by Stephen Bilkis

Marlowe v. Staten Island University Hospital is a medical malpractice case that centers around the tragic death of a newborn infant. The case provides a sobering reminder of the devastating consequences that can result when healthcare providers fail to meet the standard of care that is expected of them. During the labor and delivery process, healthcare providers must continuously monitor the fetal heart rate to ensure that the baby is receiving enough oxygen and nutrients. If the healthcare providers notice any signs of distress, such as an abnormal heart rate or reduced movement, they must take appropriate action to address the distress and prevent any harm to the baby.

Background

In 2001, Ashley Marlowe arrived at Staten Island University Hospital for the delivery of her first child. During the labor and delivery process, her baby experienced fetal distress, but the healthcare providers allegedly failed to provide appropriate care to address the distress. As a result, Marlowe’s baby was born with severe brain damage and died a few days later.

Published on: February 27, 2023

Court Discusses the Importance of Informed Consent and Apparent Authority. Johnson v. New York Methodist Hospital, 69 N.E.3d 1045 (N.Y. 2016)

by Stephen Bilkis

Informed consent and apparent authority are two important legal concepts that are relevant in the healthcare industry. Informed consent refers to the right of patients to receive adequate information about their medical treatment options and to make informed decisions about their care. Apparent authority, on the other hand, refers to the legal doctrine that holds hospitals and other healthcare providers responsible for the actions of their employees or agents, even if those actions were not explicitly authorized.

In Johnson v. New York Methodist Hospital the plaintiff alleged that she did not give informed consent for a medical procedure and that the hospital was liable for the actions of an independent contractor who performed the procedure.

Background

Published on: December 16, 2014

Defendant in a medical malpractice action requests a reduction in the amount of damages awarded by the jury- Thomas v. Burack, 2009 NY Slip Op 32647(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 10/21/2009)

by Stephen Bilkis

In this medical malpractice case the defendants requested that the court reduce the amount of damages for pain and suffering, loss of services, as well as the amount of damages awarded for pecuniary loss.

In April of 2003 decedent Thomas was admitted to Downstate Hospital for single bypass heart surgery and a mitral valve repair. However, instead, defendant doctor Burack performed three open heart surgical procedures on the decedent. According to the plaintiff, because of negligent monitoring and treatment of the complications related to the procedures, in September Thomas died in Downstate Hospital without ever leaving the hospital. Plaintiff, as the administratrix of the decedent’s estate, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against defendant Burack. After a trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding $6 million for the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering, $13 million for the loss of the decedent’s services and society prior to his death, and $780,000 in pecuniary damages on the wrongful death claim.

Defendant Burack appealed. In addition to arguing that he was not liable for the decedent’s death, he also appeals the amount of the monetary judgements. He asserts that the $6 million for pain and suffering and the $13 million for loss of services are not reasonable. He further asserts that the $780,000 award for wrongful death was not proven.

Published on: August 4, 2012

Plaintiff sues mid-wife for medical malpractice regarding serious birth injury – Lacy v. My Midwife, PC, 2008 NY Slip Op 33465(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 12/11/2008)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a birth injury case, the court examines whether the actions of a volunteer midwife fall under the “Good Samaritan” rule, and as a result, the defendant should be granted summary judgement.

The plaintiff Lacy, who was carrying twins, opted for a home birth instead of giving birth at a hospital. She wanted to be assisted by a midwife and nurses. She hired defendant Delettera, a midwife, to assist with homebirth. Defendant Delettera invited defendant Chachere to assist with the process. On June 24, 2004, plaintiff had a sonogram which indicated a deceleration in the heartbeat of one of the twins. After following up at Stony Brook University Hospital, the hospital determined that the baby’s heartbeat had stabilized. The plaintiff then indicated that she wanted to give birth at Nassau University Medical Center. She requested that defendant Delettera assist, but Delettera did not have birthing credentials there. The plaintiff was told that if she wanted to deliver her baby at Nassau, it would have to be under the care of a doctor. The plaintiff refused and decided to give birth at home. On July 1, 2004, the plaintiff gave birth at home and one of the babies was stillborn. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against a number of defendants, including Delettera, Delettera’s company, and Chachere.

Chachere filed a motion for summary judgement, arguing that she was merely a lay student observer, and that the claim against her should be dismissed. Chachere claimed that her role was restricted to observing, taking pictures, making chart entries, and injecting Pitocin at the direction of defendant Delettera. Therefore, she argued, there was no connection between her presence and the harm to the plaintiff because she did not assist in the actual birth and had no contact with the mother or the deceased child. In support of her motion for summary judgement, defendant Chachere submitted an affidavit of a board-certified maternal-fetal physician. His opinion was that the baby’s death was due to the failure of the nurse/midwife to document the fetal heart rate during the home birth. He also asserted that because Chachere had no role in the pre-natal or post-natal care of the mother or the twins, the baby’s death cannot be attributed to any of her actions.

Published on: August 2, 2012

Court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgement in a medical malpractice case where the plaintiff requested damages for emotional distress based on the death of her newborn – Bauch v. Verrilli, 536 N.Y.S.2d 240 (N.Y. App. Div., 1989)

by Stephen Bilkis

The issue in this medical malpractice claim based on the death of an infant during childbirth is whether the mother must suffer a physical injury in order to sustain a claim for emotional distress.

In March 1983, plaintiff was admitted to the labor and delivery unit of defendant hospital. During the course of her labor, plaintiff’s attending physician, defendant doctor, prescribed Pitocin to stimulate contractions. The Pitocin was administered intravenously to plaintiff and, as a result, her contractions increased in intensity and frequency. Plaintiff gave birth to a baby boy. The infant was in respiratory distress at birth and died approximately 6 1/2 hours later.

Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the hospital, as well as against the doctor and nurse who attended to the plaintiff throughout her labor and delivery. The plaintiff seeks recovery for serious personal injuries, physical and emotional pain, disappointment, sadness, anxiety and psychological trauma.

Published on: August 1, 2012

Family of woman who died of lung cancer sues multiple tobacco companies for false and misleading advertising – Fabiano v. Philip Morris Inc., 2007 NY Slip Op 32393(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 8/3/2007)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Fabiano v. Philip Morris Inc., the court is presented with the issue of the circumstances under which false and misleading advertising of cigarettes by multiple manufacturers can be the basis for recovery in a product liability claim.

The decedent, Fabiano, smoked cigarettes for over 40 years, starting in 1956 when she was 14 years old. Over the years Fabiano and her husband smoked several different brands of cigarettes. Oftentimes Fabiano switched brands to the brand that her husband smoked. She also was concerned about her health, and sometimes opted for brands that were advertised as “lite,” and, therefore, healthier. In addition, Fabiano made multiple attempts to quit, but, because of her addiction, she was note able to until a few year prior to her death. Fabiano died in 2002 from lung cancer.

Fabiano’s daughter and her husband filed a product liability claim against several of the major cigarette manufacturers seeking damages. The defendants seek to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. In addition, their claims also include, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, concerted action, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, defective design, addiction, wrongful death, loss of consortium, and punitive damages.

Published on: July 30, 2012

Mother appeals medical malpractice action for birth injury – Bustos v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 2009 NY Slip Op 32464(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 10/19/2009)

by Stephen Bilkis

This medical malpractice action arises out of the labor and delivery of plaintiff Bustos’ son. Due to the large size of her baby, Bustos suffered a fractured pelvis bone during the vaginal delivery. Bustos filed a medical malpractice claim against her doctor, asserting that he departed from good and accepted standards of medical practice by failing to properly evaluate the size of the fetus and failing to recommend a cesarean section. As a result, Bustos sustained symphysis pubis diastasis—a separation and/or fracture of the lower pelvic bone—following the vaginal delivery of her son, requiring surgical intervention and pinning.

The standard for whether a doctor committed medical malpractice is whether the doctor’s care and treatment of the patient deviated from accepted community standards of medical practice, and as a result, the patient was injured.

Defendant Segarra cared for Bustos during her pregnancy. She had regular appointments with him throughout her pregnancy. On the morning of April 1, 2003, Bustos was admitted to Lenox Hill where she delivered a healthy 10-pound baby boy via vaginal delivery. During delivery Bustos was positioned flat on her back on the delivery table and her legs were spread apart with her heels hitched onto the stirrups. The bones where the two halves of her pelvis met were relaxed by the hormones of childbirth but the doctor performed a hyper flexion-abduction maneuver after she was given an epidural. Following the delivery, Bustos complained of bilateral back and leg pain. She then had surgery to repair her fractured pelvis. Bustos maintains that her pelvis would not have fractured if the doctor had properly determined the baby’s delivery weight and delivered her baby via cesarean section. The baby was large, as is common when the mother suffers from gestational diabetes—as did Bustos. The pelvic fracture could have been avoided if the baby was delivered via a cesarean section.

Published on: July 24, 2012

Mother sues doctors for failing to order a c-section delivery- Mitchell v. Lograno (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2011)

by Stephen Bilkis

When a doctor fails to perform a c-section delivery when warranted, there is a risk that the mother or baby will suffer serious birth injuries, including permanent injuries to the brain. Plaintiff Mitchell filed a medical malpractice lawsuit on behalf of her infant son against defendants Lograno, Strittmatter, and the hospital. Mitchell argues that because the doctors did not perform a c-section delivery, there were negligent, and as a result, her son suffered permanent brain injuries.

Two days prior to her expected delivery date, Mitchell was given a test that showed that her baby’s heartbeat was non-reactive. Mitchell was transferred to a hospital for additional tests and monitoring. Defendant Lograno, Michell’s doctor, discussed options with her and decided to induce a vaginal delivery using Pitocin. Before Lograno left for the evening, he discussed Mitchell’s case with Strittmatter. It was agreed that the baby would be delivered via vaginal delivery. Strittmatter performed the delivery. The baby suffered a number of injuries during the delivery, including brain damage. Mitchell filed a personal injury lawsuit against Lograno, Strittmatter, and the hospital, arguing that as a result of not performing a c-section, her baby suffered serious injuries including a brain damage. Lograno and Strittmatter moved for summary judgement dismissal of the case.

A motion for summary judgment dismal seeks a judgement on all or part of the case in a summary fashion, without the issue or case being fully litigated at trial. In this case the defendants are asking the judge to decide the case in their favor, immediately, without a trial. The legal standard for summary dismissal is that the defendants must show that there are “no genuine issues of material fact” and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In other words, the defendant must show that based on undisputed facts presented, the defendant must win because the law supports the defendants’ position.