New York Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

Published on: January 15, 2025

Claim that botched cosmetic surgery led to lost of vision. Bahnyuk v. Reed, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 32599 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

Medical malpractice cases involve the complex interaction of medical practices and legal standards. Claims often arise when patients allege that a healthcare provider’s deviation from accepted medical practices caused them harm. These cases require careful evaluation of the medical procedures involved, the standard of care expected, and whether the alleged negligence directly caused the patient’s injuries.

Background Facts

In Bahnyuk v. Reed, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 32599 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018), on March 24, 2015, Dr. Reed performed several cosmetic procedures on the plaintiff. These included breast augmentation, fat injections to the buttocks, liposculpture to the calves and ankles, and fat injections to the face. The medical malpractice claim specifically focused on the facial fat injections. The plaintiff claimed that Dr. Reed negligently performed this procedure, causing the fat to travel to the central retinal artery, resulting in a blockage and loss of vision in her left eye.

Published on: June 25, 2024

Hospital contests jury’s multimillion-dollar malpractice award in court. Redish v. Adler, 65 Misc. 3d 1227 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

Medical malpractice claims can result in multi-million dollar verdicts when juries find healthcare providers significantly deviated from accepted medical standards, leading to severe patient harm. These substantial awards often compensate for pain, suffering, and life-altering injuries. However, due to the large sums awarded, such verdicts frequently face appeals by defendants seeking to reduce the amount. Defendants argue that the awards are excessive and not in line with legal standards or precedents. Appeals can hinge on interpretations of evidence regarding the appropriateness of the awarded damages, potentially leading to reduced payouts or retrials, prolonging the resolution of the case.

In Redish v. Adler, 65 Misc. 3d 1227 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019), the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice after receiving treatment at for severe asthma case, leading to a substantial jury verdict.

Background Facts

Published on: June 25, 2024

Nursing home denied summary judgment in medical malpractice death case. Hernandez v. Amsterdam Nursing Home Corp. (1992), 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 32815 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

Falls are problem in nursing homes, often stemming from negligence in care practices. Many residents are vulnerable due to age-related frailty or medical conditions that impair mobility and balance. Proper safety measures, such as adequate staffing, regular monitoring, and personalized care plans, are crucial to prevent falls. Negligence occurs when these practices are not properly implemented, leading to unnecessary risks. Common oversights include failing to use bed alarms, inadequate supervision, and not adjusting care to account for medication effects. Such negligence can result in falls that cause severe injuries or even fatalities among elderly residents.

Hernandez v. Amsterdam Nursing Home Corp. (1992), 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 32815 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019) involves an allegation of nursing home and medical malpractice following the death of a 67-year-old woman under their care who suffered serious injuries following a fall.

Background Facts

Published on: June 24, 2024

Claim of medical malpractice that resulted in baby suffering neurological complications. Youssef v. Fayez Guirguis, M.D., 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 33390 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

This medical malpractice cased involved a patient with a difficult pregnancy and childbirth that resulted in a birth injury to the child. The court was tasked to determine whether the child’s injuries were due to mistakes made by the hospital, the doctors involved, or both.

Background Facts

Ms. Youssef arrived at New York Methodist Hospital (NYMH) in December 2013, referred by her private physician to rule out preeclampsia at 38 weeks and 3 days pregnant. She was diagnosed with preeclampsia and monitored closely. Preeclampsia is a pregnancy complication characterized by high blood pressure (hypertension) and signs of damage to organs, most commonly the liver and kidneys. It usually develops after 20 weeks of pregnancy and can affect both the mother and the unborn baby. Symptoms of preeclampsia may include high blood pressure, protein in the urine (proteinuria), swelling (edema), sudden weight gain, headaches, vision changes (such as blurred vision or sensitivity to light), and abdominal pain.

Published on: June 24, 2024

Court determines that Government Entity’s Actual Knowledge Justifies Late Notice of Claim. A.M. v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp. 212 A.D.3d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

Medical malpractice cases involve complex legal and medical issues. In A.M. v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp. 212 A.D.3d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023), the Supreme Court of Bronx County considered a case involving birth injuries, specifically Erbs Palsy.

Erb’s palsy, also known as Erb-Duchenne palsy, is a condition that occurs when there is damage to the brachial plexus, a network of nerves near the neck that controls movement and sensation in the shoulder, arm, and hand. This damage can occur during childbirth, typically when there is excessive pulling on the infant’s head and neck during delivery. Erb’s palsy can result in weakness or paralysis of the affected arm, as well as loss of sensation. Treatment for Erb’s palsy may include physical therapy, occupational therapy, and in some cases, surgery. The outlook for individuals with Erb’s palsy varies depending on the severity of the condition, but many people are able to regain some or all function in the affected arm with appropriate treatment and therapy.

Background Facts

Published on: June 24, 2024

Judge Rules Sufficient Evidence Exists for Medical Malpractice Case to Proceed Against Westchester Medical Center. Lee v Westchester County Health Care Corp. 2023 NY Slip Op 04762

by Stephen Bilkis

In Lee v Westchester County Health Care Corp. 2023 NY Slip Op 04762, the central issue was whether the medical staff deviated from accepted medical practices, leading to severe injuries for the plaintiff. Deviating from accepted medical practices means that a healthcare provider did not follow the standard procedures and guidelines that are widely recognized and adhered to by the medical community. These standards are based on the collective knowledge, experience, and research of medical professionals and are designed to ensure that patients receive safe and effective care.When a doctor or medical professional deviates from these accepted practices, it suggests that they failed to provide the level of care that a reasonably competent provider in the same field would have delivered under similar circumstances. This can include errors in diagnosis, treatment, follow-up care, or obtaining informed consent. Deviating from accepted medical practices can lead to patient harm, complications, or worsening of medical conditions, and it is a key factor in medical malpractice claims.

Background Facts

In the early morning of August 19, 2014, the plaintiff was involved in a car accident and was transported by ambulance to Westchester Medical Center. Upon arrival, the plaintiff received treatment from several medical professionals, including Dr. Min Li Xu, Dr. Dmitriy V. Karev, Dr. Hanna Alemayehu, Dr. David Spielvogel, Dr. Ramin Malekan, and Dr. Arun Goyal. By 2:45 a.m., the plaintiff was diagnosed with an aortic transection but remained hemodynamically stable. Due to the high risk of complications from immediate surgery, Dr. Malekan, the on-call cardiothoracic surgeon, decided to delay the aortic repair.

Published on: June 24, 2024

Jury Awards $2.25M for Pain and Suffering in Malpractice Case. Raefski v. Hirsch, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 30970 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

Raefski v. Hirsch, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 30970 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020) is a medical malpractice case that with allegations of failing to follow accepted medical practice and failing to get informed consent. Failing to follow accepted medical practice means a healthcare provider did not adhere to the standard procedures and protocols recognized by the medical community for treating a specific condition. This deviation can result in harm to the patient, as it suggests negligence or improper care. Informed consent not being properly obtained means that the patient was not adequately informed about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a procedure or treatment. This lack of communication denies the patient the opportunity to make an informed decision about their care, which is a fundamental patient right.

Defendants sought various relief including setting aside the verdict and reducing damages in a medical malpractice case. Plaintiffs, Darren Raefski, and his deceased wife, Cheryl Raefski, alleged that Dr. Hirsch’s medical negligence resulted in Cheryl’s death.

Background Facts

Published on: June 24, 2024

Medical Malpractice Claim Dismissed Due to Statutory Lapse. Liberatore v. Greuner, 44 N.Y.S.3d 869 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a case involving medical malpractice, conversion, and fraud, David Greuner filed a motion for summary judgment under CPLR 3212. Greuner argued that the plaintiff, Maria Liberatore, lacked standing because her claims were assets of her Chapter 7 Bankruptcy trustee. He also contended that her medical malpractice and conversion claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and her fraud claim was duplicative of the medical malpractice claim.

A statute of limitations sets the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings can be initiated. In New York, for medical malpractice claims, including those involving injuries or death, the statute of limitations is two years and six months from the date of the alleged act, omission, or improper treatment. This time limit is crucial, as failing to file a claim within this period can result in the loss of the right to seek compensation. However, there are exceptions, such as tolling the statute for insanity, which requires a showing of mental incapacity that prevented the plaintiff from understanding their legal rights.

Background Facts

Published on: June 24, 2024

Ordinary Negligence vs. Medical Malpractice. Rabinovich v. Maimonides Med. Ctr., 179 A.D.3d 88 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

Rabinovich v. Maimonides Med. Ctr., 179 A.D.3d 88 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019) involves the distinction between ordinary negligence and medical malpractice. The determination impacts requirements related to CPLR 3012-a, which requires a certificate of merit in medical malpractice actions.

Background Facts

On August 13, 2015, the plaintiff donated blood at a blood donation center in Brooklyn. After leaving the center, she had an adverse reaction, lost consciousness, fell, and sustained injuries. On September 18, 2017, she filed an action against the center. The defendant responded, demanding a complaint, which the plaintiff provided, detailing the alleged negligence. The defendant’s answer included ten affirmative defenses, one of which was the plaintiff’s failure to file a certificate of merit as required by CPLR 3012-a.

Published on: June 24, 2024

Equitable Distribution in Medical Malpractice Settlements. In re Delmoro, 48 Misc. 3d 628, 11 N.Y.S.3d 439 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a medical malpractice case where the patient dies, both wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering claims are relevant and often pursued simultaneously. The wrongful death claim addresses the long-term impact on the surviving family members, providing them with financial compensation for their loss. Meanwhile, the conscious pain and suffering claim focuses on the decedent’s experience, compensating for the distress and pain endured before death. By pursuing both types of claims, the decedent’s estate and family can seek full compensation for the broad spectrum of losses and suffering resulting from the medical malpractice.

In In re Delmoro, the New York Surrogate’s Court addressed the distribution of proceeds from a wrongful death settlement. The case involved the estate of Ronald A. Delmoro, who passed away in 2009 due to medical malpractice. The court’s decision highlighted the complexities in applying the Kaiser formula, a standard method for distributing wrongful death proceeds, and emphasized the need for equitable considerations in such matters.

The Kaiser formula, established in Matter of Kaiser, 198 Misc. 582, 100 N.Y.S.2d 218 (1950), is a method used in wrongful death cases to allocate proceeds among a decedent’s surviving spouse and children. It calculates each distributee’s share based on their years of anticipated dependency. The formula’s denominator is the sum of these years for all eligible distributees, while the numerator for each distributee is their individual years of anticipated dependency. This fraction determines the proportion of the settlement they receive. The formula aims to simplify distribution but may not always yield equitable results, as it doesn’t consider each distributee’s unique circumstances.