Hospital Malpratice

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 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: 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