Articles Posted in Misdiagnosis

Published on:

The defendants in this case have motioned for summary judgment to dismiss the complaints made against them.

Case Background

The plaintiff filed an instant complaint against the defendants on the 22nd of May, 2000. The complaint alleges that the law firm defendant’s representation of him in an underlying medical malpracticeaction constitutes legal malpractice. The plaintiff also alleges that the defendant insurance company breached its contract with him by failing to provide him with adequate representation in the underlying action.

Continue reading

Published on:

Malpractice 88

The plaintiff alleges that she was injured due to the negligence and malpracticecommitted by the defendant who is a licensed podiatrist. The action against the defendant was started by service of a summons and complaint. The plaintiff asserts at this point that all of the pretrial proceedings have been completed and now moves for trial. The plaintiff states that she is entitled to special preference under CPLR 3403.

The defendant argues that the plaintiff’s action is for podiatric malpractice, which is separate from the practice of medicine and because of this is not entitled to special preference under CPLR 3403. The defendant further argues that the motion is premature because the plaintiff has not filed a note of issue and statement of readiness.

Continue reading

Published on:

The defendants in this case have motioned for summary judgment to dismiss the complaints made against them.

Case Background

The plaintiff filed an instant complaint against the defendants on the 22nd of May, 2000. The complaint alleges that the law firm defendant’s representation of him in an underlying medical malpracticeaction constitutes legal malpractice. The plaintiff also alleges that the defendant insurance company breached its contract with him by failing to provide him with adequate representation in the underlying action.

Continue reading

Published on:

The plaintiff is appealing an order made by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County that granted the defendant’s motion to leave to reargue their motion for summary judgment. Upon re-argument, the court vacated the previous amended complaint and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Case Background

The plaintiff noticed a lump in her left armpit and was referred for a CT scan and mammography. The CT scan was done at the hospital and the defendant is the radiologist that read the scan. The defendant read the scan as negative and reported his findings to the plaintiff’s referring physician. The mammogram was also interpreted as negative a few weeks later by a non-party radiologist.

Continue reading

Published on:

This is a medical malpractice action. The plaintiffs are seeking damages, personal and derivative, for injuries that were allegedly sustained by the recipient plaintiff as a result of the care and treatment he received from March 30th, 2007 through May 17th, 2007. The recipient plaintiff underwent a kidney transplant in March of 2007.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants departed from accepted medical standards in the recipient plaintiffs care and treatment. The plaintiffs further alleges that the defendant physicians that were caring for the pediatric patient who was the donor departed from accepted medical standards when they failed to diagnose cancer in the donor while he was a patient at a non-party hospital. The plaintiffs further allege that the New York Organ Donor Network was negligent in failing to properly evaluate the suitability of the donor’s organs for transplantation.

Case background

Continue reading

Published on:

The defendants have moved for an order to amend the caption that recently appointed the plaintiff as the administrator of the estate and upon the amendment to have the complaint against them dismissed.

Case Facts

The Westchester plaintiff both individually and as the administrator of the estate of the deceased, started this action against the defendants to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death. The plaintiff alleges that the care given to his mother was negligent up until the time that she passed away.

Continue reading

Published on:

Defendants New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and Dr. PN (collectively defendants) move for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint insofar as asserted against them.

In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff alleges that defendants deviated from accepted standards of medical care while he was being treated in the hospital for severe injuries he sustained in an automobile accident. The Manhattan plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defends its improperly and negligently positioned and restrained his wrists, failed to monitor the effects of the restraints, negligently failed to perform physical therapy on him, and negligently caused his arms to become paralyzed and non-functional.

On December 29, 2004, plaintiff, then age 62, was driving his vehicle when it struck trees, a fence and landed in a courtyard, ejecting him from the driver’s side window. Plaintiff sustained various injuries, including a hemorrhage of the head, a crushed left leg from his foot to hip, and multiple lacerations and abrasions. EMS brought plaintiff to Kings County Hospital emergency room, where plaintiff was described as alert, combative, and intoxicated. Plaintiff was intubated and x-rays and abdominal/pelvic ct-scans were performed. Plaintiff sustained fractures of the pelvis, left femur, and left tibia/fibula, and had internal bleeding.

Continue reading

Published on:

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 4, 2006, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. On November 11, 1999 the 26-month-old plaintiff was seen by the defendant doctor who diagnosed viral tonsillitis and prescribed medications to alleviate her symptoms. Later that day, the plaintiff developed additional symptoms and was admitted to Elmhurst Hospital Center (hereinafter Elmhurst) on November 12, 1999. The admitting diagnosis was pneumonia based upon a chest X-ray and blood test. During the plaintiff’s 13-day hospital stay, various antibiotic treatments were administered. Shortly after the plaintiff’s discharge from the hospital on November 24, 1999 her mother noticed that the plaintiff did not respond to speech and sound, indicating hearing loss, which was ultimately determined to be complete and permanent.

A Queens Lawyer said that, in 2002 the plaintiff, by her mother, commenced the instant action against the defendant Health & Hospitals Corporation, alleging negligent failure to diagnose and treat meningitis, causing the plaintiff’s permanent hearing loss. In 2005, after defendant doctor was deposed as a nonparty witness, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding him as a defendant and alleging that he negligently failed to test for meningitis during the plaintiff’s office visit on November 11, 1999. A Lawyer said that, the Supreme Court denied defendant doctor’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, holding that conflicting expert medical opinion evidence raised a triable issue of fact.

The issue in this case is whether defendant doctor should be held liable for medical malpractice together with defendant Health & Hospitals Corporation.

Continue reading

Published on:

This is a case being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in New York County. The case involves three separate motions that have been consolidated for disposition. In the motion sequence numbered 002, the plaintiff is moving for summary judgment on the claims for an account stated against defendants in the amounts of $354,463.82 and $100,000 plus interest and dismissing the counterclaims of defendants.

In the motion sequence 003, the third party defendant has moved to dismiss the third party complaint on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over their firm or in the alternative that the third party action be stayed on the ground of a valid agreement to arbitrate. The third party defendants have also moved to dismiss the first, second and fifth causes of action in the complaint for failing to state a claim for relief.

In the motion sequence 004 the other third party defendant of the case has moved to dismiss the third party complaint against them and for sanctions against the defendant and third party plaintiffs.

Continue reading

Published on:

The case before the court is one of legal malpractice. The Bronx plaintiff had a bi-lateral mastectomy, which she claims was the result of being misdiagnosed. The plaintiffs are seeking a judgment against the defendants for negligently prosecuting a medical malpractice action on behalf of the plaintiff.

Case Background

In March of 2006, the law firm defendants filed a motion to have the complaint against them dismissed. In October of 2006 the court issued an interim order that directed all of the parties to provide a briefing on the issue of the bankrupt extension. The court reviewed the briefs and heard oral arguments. The court then made the decision to deny the dismissal of the complaint.

Continue reading

Contact Information