421 results for 'cat:"Medical Malpractice"'.
J. Hyman finds that the lower court properly found the doctor guilty of medical malpractice by failing to properly intubate a patient, causing permanent brain damage. The court correctly instructed the jury that it needed to unanimously find the doctor was negligent, but did not need to be unanimous as to which one of his acts constituted the negligence. Affirmed.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Hyman, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: 230134, Categories: Jury, medical Malpractice
J. Blacklock finds that the court of appeals improperly ruled in favor of a doctor in a case brought by a patient of his who claims he released her from the hospital prematurely and is liable for damages she sustained in a fall. While the patient filed her suit within the tolling period of the statute of limitations, the form was incomplete, leading the court of appeals to find in favor of the doctor. However, an incomplete from is still viable for the tolling of the limitations period. Therefore, the patient's claims are ripe. Reversed.
Court: Texas Supreme Court, Judge: Blacklock, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: 22-0435, Categories: Civil Procedure, medical Malpractice
J. Herndon grants the hospital's petition for a writ of prohibition challenging the district court's order compelling discovery. The hospital was sued for negligence by the guardian of the premature baby who suffered developmental issues while being treated. Though the guardian's motion seeking information found by the hospital's internal investigation was granted, patient safety work product is privileged from discovery in civil proceedings under the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, and cannot be waived.
Court: Nevada Supreme Court, Judge: Herndon, Filed On: March 7, 2024, Case #: 85844, Categories: Discovery, medical Malpractice, Privilege
J. Urias denies the doctor's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that because she owns property and registered her medical license in Maryland, diversity requirements are met and this court has jurisdiction over the estate's medical malpractice claims. Meanwhile, the federal government's motion to dismiss will also be denied to allow for limited discovery on the issue of whether the doctor was an independent contractor that would render her an employee of the U.S.
Court: USDC New Mexico, Judge: Urias, Filed On: March 6, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv188, NOS: Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Government, Jurisdiction, medical Malpractice
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Molaison finds that a patient's medical malpractice action is dismissed due to insufficient notice. In this case, the patient requested service by the clerk but stated that copies of the pleadings to be served would be provided. These copies were not provided until after the 90-day time period had run. Reversed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Molaison, Filed On: March 6, 2024, Case #: 24-C-10, Categories: Civil Procedure, medical Malpractice
J. Mercier finds that the trial court properly granted the hospital's motion to dismiss negligence, promissory estoppel and pain and suffering claims in a medical malpractice action brought by the widow after her husband's death. The widow failed to file an expert affidavit, which was necessary because her claims were based on questions about the propriety of medication administered to the husband and therefore fell into the realm of professional malpractice rather than simple negligence. However, the trial court incorrectly ruled in favor of the hospital on the widow's battery claim alleging that the hospital performed surgery without consent. The widow pointed to evidence that the husband's signature on a permission form was forged. Affirmed in part.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Mercier, Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: A23A1589, Categories: medical Malpractice
J. Wood adopts the magistrate judge's recommendation and grants the healthcare provider's and doctor's motion to dismiss the couple's medical malpractice action as a sanction for fabricating evidence. The action arose from injuries the husband allegedly suffered after a doctor left gauze inside his nasal cavity following a septoplasty. The couple's objections to the magistrate judge's findings, including that a cell phone video taken by the husband showing bloody materials in a basin after his doctor's appointment was fabricated, are overruled. The couple "abused the judicial process and committed a fraud upon the court" by staging the video with fake, bloody items and submitting it to the provider and doctor during discovery as a "centerpiece" of their case. The provider and doctor proved the husband did not record the video in a specific exam room.
Court: USDC Southern District of Georgia, Judge: Wood, Filed On: March 1, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv21, NOS: Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Sanctions, medical Malpractice
J. Gordon grants the Department of Veterans Affairs' motion for summary judgment as to the patient's medical malpractice claim. The patient alleges the VA's medical provider negligently performed non-emergency invasive sinus surgery without his informed consent. The VA's liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act is determined by state law. The surgery was performed in Alabama, and malpractice claims based on alleged surgical negligence are barred by Alabama’s four-year statute of repose. The VA’s motion did not address allegations its provider also negligently failed to diagnose the patient's post-procedure nerve damage and, therefore, that claim remains pending.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Gordon , Filed On: March 1, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv1823, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: Health Care, Veterans, medical Malpractice
J. Silva finds that the lower court improperly overruled the doctors' objection to an expert report in this medical malpractice case. The expert report fails to adequately explain how the alleged breach of care caused the appellee's injuries, and it also "fails to address foreseeability." However, the patients will be given a chance to cure the report's deficiencies. Accordingly, the matter is remanded for further proceedings. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Silva, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 13-23-00234-CV, Categories: Civil Procedure, Experts, medical Malpractice
J. Benavides finds in this interlocutory appeal that the lower court improperly denied the appellants' dismissal motion in this health care liability action alleging that a patient was not properly placed on a gurney. The appellee failed to properly file the expert report as required, specifically as to the "mandatory deadline." Also, the appellants' did not waive their right to dismissal by participating in discovery or waiting to file the dismissal motion. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Benavides, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 13-23-00353-CV, Categories: Civil Procedure, Experts, medical Malpractice
J. Markle finds that the trial court properly ruled partially in favor of the surgeons in a medical malpractice action brought by the patient arising from rectal injuries she suffered after a laparoscopic hysterectomy. The trial court correctly found that the surgeons are not vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of a medical student who participated in the procedure. There was no employment relationship between the surgeons and the student. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Markle, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: A23A1419, Categories: medical Malpractice
J. Reynolds Fitzgerald finds that the lower court improperly dismissed malpractice claims brought against an orthopedist and hospital after arthroscopic knee surgery led to a staph infection that ultimately required total knee replacement. The patient's medical expert raised triable issues of fact as to whether infection should have been suspected earlier and whether tests should have been performed to rule out the possibility. Reversed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Reynolds Fitzgerald, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 535732, Categories: Experts, medical Malpractice
[Consolidated.] J. Land finds that the trial court properly dismissed the individual's negligence and medical malpractice action against Publix arising from injuries she suffered after she was prescribed Bactrim, a medication to which she was allergic. The individual failed to provide an expert affidavit from a pharmacist or pharmacologist despite the fact that her theory of negligence implicated Publix's exercise of professional skill and judgment in operating a pharmacy. However, the trial court incorrectly dismissed the individual's claims against the doctor. An expert affidavit provided by another doctor met the statutory requirements because it stated that a supervising doctor should have created a protocol to minimize the risk of a nurse practitioner prescribing an improper drug. Reversed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Land, Filed On: February 28, 2024, Case #: A23A1291, Categories: Negligence, medical Malpractice
J. Ellender finds that the trial court properly dismissed a father's medical malpractice claim against a neurosurgeon for alleged deficiencies in the treatment of his deceased son. In this case, the son's vagal nerve stimulator to treat his seizures did not have a dead battery when the son visited the neurosurgeon, as the father alleges, but the battery was at eight to eighteen percent power. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Ellender, Filed On: February 28, 2024, Case #: 55,434-CA, Categories: Evidence, medical Malpractice
J. Chehardy finds that the trial court properly dismissed a patient's medical malpractice action related to the failure of hardware placed in his back during surgery in 2016. The patient should have been aware of the malpractice in 2017 when he made an emergency room visit due to back pain. The patient does not show that he first learned of his claim in 2018, or that the delayed date was reasonable. Therefore, the patient's medical malpractice claim has prescribed. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Chehardy, Filed On: February 28, 2024, Case #: 23-CA-190, Categories: Civil Procedure, Evidence, medical Malpractice
J. Bowman finds that the lower court improperly found in favor of a medical center after a former patient claims it misdiagnosed her cancerous mass as benign. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the center after finding that the patient's out-of-state expert was not qualified to give an opinion on Washington's standards of care in this regard, but the comparison between the national standard of care and Washington's own standards do not differ too wildly. The expert showed that he was familiar with the national standards, and because Washington follows those by and large, he was not disqualified from testifying on the case. Reversed.
Court: Washington Court Of Appeals, Judge: Bowman, Filed On: February 26, 2024, Case #: 85197-7-I, Categories: Experts, medical Malpractice
J. Mendez-Miro grants the hospital and doctors' motion to exclude the testimony of one expert, but denies their motion to exclude another's testimony and a supplement to a motion in limine. The first expert, a neurologist, came to broad conclusions about the standard of care that do not rest on reliable scientific methodologies or grounds. The hospital and doctors' contentions that the second, testifying as a Life Care Planner, engaged in unsupported speculation are not sufficient reason to exclude his testimony. The supplement, finally, does not include any new theories or evidence surprising to the hospital or doctors, and is harmless.
Court: USDC Puerto Rico, Judge: Mendez-Miro, Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: 3:20cv1431, NOS: Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Experts, medical Malpractice
J. Cadish finds the county court properly ruled in favor of the surgeon in this medical malpractice suit. The patient sustained a femoral nerve injury during a hip replacement and filed this suit alleging negligence and lack of informed consent. Though the patient says that certain expert testimony containing legal fallacies should not have been allowed, a doctor stating the surgery was properly completed, and the injury happened incidentally is not a legal fallacy. Affirmed.
Court: Nevada Supreme Court, Judge: Cadish , Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: 85163, Categories: Negligence, Experts, medical Malpractice
J. Parker finds that the lower court properly denied the appellants' motion to dismiss this health care liability action stemming from the death of a nursing home resident. The resident allegedly died from hypothermia after a window was left open at the assisted living facility where she lived. The nurse and the director challenge the proffered experts' qualifications "to opine on the applicable health care standards." However, the experts included two licensed nursing home administrators and a forensic pathologist. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Parker, Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: 07-23-00392-CV, Categories: Health Care, Experts, medical Malpractice