New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

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

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

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.

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.