The Court of Appeals applied Indiana’s constitutional discovery exception to revive claims against a pulmonologist but held claims against a family doctor untimely.
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a medical-malpractice verdict, finding a photo objection waived and an outside juror contact harmless after the affected juror was removed.
The First Department held that inaccurately transcribing a seizure date onto a DMV physician form is ordinary negligence governed by a three-year limitations period.
The Nevada Supreme Court held that NRS 7.095 capped contingency fees on a medical-negligence settlement and clarified when counsel must perfect an attorney lien.
The First Department affirmed dismissal of a ureter-injury malpractice claim because the plaintiff’s expert did not answer the defense explanation that delayed tissue damage would not have been visible during surgery.
The First Department kept a delayed pulmonary-embolism claim against a hospital alive but dismissed the treating emergency physician because the opposition relied on facts contradicted by the medical record.
The Superior Court preserved nursing-home negligence liability but ordered a new compensatory-damages trial and vacated punitive damages against operating entities.
The Indiana Court of Appeals held that unsworn expert letters could not rebut a medical review panel opinion and could not be repaired after summary judgment.
Second Department affirms grant of reargument in OB malpractice case: trial court properly vacated its prior grant of summary judgment after recognizing it had overlooked defendants’ introduction — for the first time in reply — of a new ‘in-house obstetrician’ theory that plaintiff had no chance to rebut.
The Appellate Division, Second Department partially reverses summary judgment in favor of Good Samaritan Hospital in a spinal surgery malpractice action, holding that the hospital may be vicariously liable for post-discharge outpatient radiology services ordered by the treating surgeon through the hospital—extending the accrual date for the hospital’s limitations defense.
The Fourth Department holds that a radiologist owes no duty to recommend a biopsy after identifying a hand mass on MRI — that obligation falls on the treating physician — while allowing the claim that the radiologist negligently misread the imaging to proceed to trial.
The Fourth Department reinstates a medical malpractice complaint against a hospital, finding hospital-issued scrubs, a Medical Staff badge, and emergency neonatal circumstances raise a triable question of apparent agency over independent-contractor neonatologists.
The First Department reversed denial of summary judgment in a medical malpractice action, holding it was time-barred under CPLR § 214-a because plaintiff sought no further treatment after a post-operative evaluation more than two and a half years before filing suit — and a note in the chart scheduling a follow-up visit that plaintiff never attended did not extend the limitations period under the continuous treatment doctrine.
First Department reverses denial of summary judgment in medical malpractice case, finding plaintiff’s experts failed to specifically rebut defense expert’s opinions on standard of care and causation.
The Second Department affirmed denial of a motion to vacate dismissal of a medical malpractice action, finding the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for not appearing at a court conference.
Appellate Division reverses, granting motion to conform medical malpractice pleadings to evidence developed during discovery regarding phacoemulsification surgery injuries.
Second Department affirms summary judgment for hospital in bed sore malpractice case, finding plaintiff’s expert opinions conclusory and lacking proper foundation.
Second Department partially modifies summary judgment order in neonatal malpractice case, dismissing two of four theories and informed consent claim while preserving claims for delayed surfactant and blood transfusion.
The Eighth District invalidated a nursing home arbitration agreement embedded within an admissions agreement, holding it failed to comply with R.C. 2711.23’s requirement for a standalone document with mandatory disclosures.
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed discovery sanctions striking plaintiffs’ experts for failing to disclose local standard-of-care consultants, but reversed summary judgment on causation—holding that foreseeability requires only a general risk of harm, not proof of a specific pharmacokinetic mechanism.