New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

Medical malpractice is a serious issue that can have devastating consequences for patients and their families. In the case of Estate of Thomas Brown v. St. Francis Hosp., the plaintiff alleged that a hospital’s negligence resulted in the wrongful death of their loved one. This case highlights the importance of holding healthcare providers accountable for their actions and the need for patients and their families to seek legal recourse when medical malpractice occurs.

Background

In 2012, Thomas Brown underwent surgery to remove a mass in his chest at St. Francis Hospital. During the procedure, a resident physician inserted a central venous catheter (CVC) into Brown’s jugular vein, which is a common practice during surgery. However, the resident physician inserted the catheter too far, causing it to enter Brown’s subclavian artery, which supplies blood to the arms and head. This led to a hematoma, or a collection of blood, in Brown’s chest.

Wachter v. State of New York is an example of medical malpractice that occurred in a nursing home setting. It highlights the importance of proper supervision and care in nursing homes. The case was brought by the family of an elderly woman who suffered severe injuries while residing in a nursing home operated by the State of New York.

Background

The plaintiff in this case, Marion Wachter, was an 88-year-old woman who had been residing in a nursing home operated by the State of New York for several years. In November 1999, Wachter fell while attempting to walk to the bathroom and suffered severe injuries, including a broken hip and a head injury. She died several weeks later as a result of her injuries.

Sikorski v. North Shore-LIJ Health Sys. highlights the importance of informed consent in medical treatment. The case involved a patient who underwent a medical procedure without being properly informed of the risks and potential complications. The case highlights the principle that healthcare providers have a duty to obtain informed consent from their patients before performing any medical procedure, and that failure to do so can result in liability for medical malpractice.

Informed consent in New York refers to the process by which a healthcare provider obtains a patient’s permission to perform a medical procedure or treatment. The process of obtaining informed consent requires the healthcare provider to disclose information to the patient about the proposed procedure or treatment, including the risks, benefits, alternatives, and potential complications. The purpose of informed consent is to enable the patient to make an informed decision about whether to undergo the procedure or treatment.

In New York, the requirements for informed consent are set forth in Section 2805-d of the Public Health Law. The statute provides that a healthcare provider must obtain informed consent from a patient or the patient’s authorized representative before performing a medical or surgical procedure, diagnostic test, or other treatment that involves a significant risk of harm to the patient.

In Pakenham v. New York City Health & Hosp. Corp. the plaintiff sued the hospital and the physician for medical malpractice, alleging that the defendants failed to properly diagnose and treat her condition, leading to serious injuries. The case highlights the principle of res ipsa loquitur in medical malpractice cases and the importance of expert testimony in proving a case of medical malpractice.

Background

In Pakenham v. New York City Health & Hosp. Corp., the plaintiff, Ms. Pakenham, visited the hospital for treatment of a lump in her breast. The physician, Dr. Spingarn, examined the lump and concluded that it was benign. Ms. Pakenham was sent home without further treatment. Over the next few months, Ms. Pakenham’s condition worsened, and she returned to the hospital for further examination. This time, a different physician examined the lump and determined that it was cancerous. Ms. Pakenham underwent extensive treatment, including surgery and chemotherapy, to treat the cancer.

Vicarious liability for a hospital is a legal principle that holds a hospital responsible for the negligent acts of its employees, particularly physicians and other medical professionals who are providing care to patients. When a hospital employee, such as a physician, causes harm to a patient through negligence or malpractice, the patient can sue the hospital for damages under a theory of vicarious liability. Vicarious liability for a hospital is an important principle in medical malpractice law because it allows injured patients to recover damages from the hospital, which may have deeper pockets than the individual physician.

Perez v. St. Clare’s Hospital involves a surgical procedure that went wrong, causing the patient to suffer severe injuries. The main issue in the case was whether the hospital where the procedure was performed could be held liable for the actions of the surgeon who performed the procedure. The case highlights the principle that hospitals can be held vicariously liable for the actions of their employees, including physicians, in certain circumstances.

Background

Nursing homes are designed to provide a safe and supportive environment for elderly and vulnerable individuals who require medical care and assistance with daily living activities. Unfortunately, nursing home injuries and abuse are a growing concern in New York and across the United States. These injuries can be caused by a wide range of factors, including neglect, abuse, medication errors, and inadequate staffing.

Gadaleta v. Kissing Camels Home Health Care, Inc. highlights the importance of proper care and treatment of pressure sores in nursing homes and home health care settings. Pressure sores, also known as bedsores, can develop when a patient is unable to move for extended periods, such as in the case of wheelchair-bound patients. Nursing homes have a legal and ethical obligation to provide adequate care to their residents, including taking steps to prevent the development of pressure sores. For example, residents who are unable to move on their own should be regularly repositioned to relieve pressure on their skin and prevent the development of pressure sores.

Background