Physicians, as professionals, owe a duty of care to those who seek their treatment. This element is rarely an issue in malpractice litigation, because once a doctor agrees to treat a patient, he or she has a professional duty to provide competent care. More important is that the plaintiff must show some actual, compensable injury that is the result of the alleged negligent care. Proof of injury can include the physical effects of the treatment performed by the physician, but it can also include emotional effects. The amount of compensation at issue is usually a highly contested part of the litigation.
Im going through this right now, a dr. Did a 45 min eval on me at the request of dfs just to make sure i was "ok" an this woman said i was borderline psychotic and narcissistic. . she made up lies on the report to support her claim.. And i cant get a 2nd opinion because dfs only excepts reports from workers in their department... I dont know what to do. These people are the devil.
They even let me know if they're going to be letting a student do my blood draw, and they sure as hell better let me know if there's any risk I'm entrusting my life to a hack. (I once found out a doc who tried to push a drug on me represented Lily or whoever was making tht drug...so I wonder if they should be required to provide all this info up front, whether asked or not. I have an effing right to know who is slicing me up.)
While some diagnostic errors may be seen as reasonable, patient harm that stems from inadequate communication could be the result of negligence on the part of medical providers. Every case is different, and the strength of yours is in the details. To have those details reviewed by an experienced medical malpractice lawyer, contact The Tinker Law Firm, PLLC. Call us today or fill out our online contact form for a free claim evaluation.
In view of Daubert and Kuhmo, the pre trial preparation of expert witnesses is critical. A problem with Daubert is that the presiding judge may admit testimony which derives from highly contested data. The judge may expand the limits contained in the "school of thought" precedent. Papers that are self-published may be admiited as the basis for expert testimony. Non-peer reviewed journals may also be admitted in similar fashion. The only criterion is the opinion of a single judge who, in all likelihood, has no relevant scientific or medical training.
2. Lawyer - choose a lawyer you feel happy and comfortable with. Of equal importance to this, ensure the lawyer you choose is specialised in medical negligence law. 1stClaims will be able to help you find the perfect lawyer for you, so get in touch with us today. They will be able to give to the legal support you need. You can do this on behalf of a family member if they are unable to do this on their own.
^ Faulty Data and False Conclusions: The Myth of Skyrocketing Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Lewis L. Laska, J.D., Ph.D. and Katherine Forrest, M.D., M.P.H. Commonweal Institute, October 6, 2004. From the report, "The premise that medical malpractice awards have been rising dramatically in the United States in recent years, driving up the cost of healthcare and forcing physicians out of practice, is not supported by relevant evidence."
As for the marital stress, how did it get to court? Let's say the couple asks the psychiatrist if she's been divorced. I say she must either say yes, or say I won't tell you. Her choice. It would not be OK for her to lie. At that point the couple can find someone else. No damages. No court. When you say "must be disclosed," do you mean the court would hold that the psychiatrist should volunteer the information? First you would need an expert to testify to that. Then there would have to be damages, and proximate cause. Seems like a real stretch.
Medical doctors must go through an enormous amount of schooling and training before they are allowed to be physicians and practice medicine. But even so, they are still human – and sometimes things go wrong. When this happens, it is called “medical malpractice”. Medical malpractice occurs when a patient is harmed by a doctor (or medical paraprofessional) who fails to competently perform their duties. The rules about medical malpractice and what must be done to sue on those grounds are varied and, in some cases, very specific. From knowing when you must bring your lawsuit to knowing whether you must notify the doctor ahead of time and how to do it, the team of legal professionals at the Sodhi Law Group will guide you through the process. Here is a brief overview of types of malpractice followed by what requirements must be met for something to constitute medical malpractice.
A 2011 study appearing in the Journal of the American College of Radiology revealed that the legal costs to doctors for failing to communicate diagnostic test results rose by $70 million from 1991 to 2010 across all specialties. The lead study author stated that communication failure can happen at any level. Three scenarios, however, were identified as the leading causes of communication problems:
Medical malpractice suits are usually filed in a state trial court, unless the case involves federal funding, a military medical facility, or or a Veteran’s Administration facility: then it would be filed in a federal district court. A claim may also be filed in a federal court if the parties involved are from different states, or if there was an accused violation of a fundamental constitutional right.
In order to successfully prosecute a medical malpractice lawsuit, the party bringing the action (the plaintiff) must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the negligent act of a healthcare provider caused injury to the plaintiff. The entire burden of proof resides on the plaintiff; the government need not even present a witness. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff must present the testimony of qualified experts who support his position. Identifying experts and working with them is a major part of preparing your case for trial. Our firm retains only experts of impeccable character and the highest professional credentials. We do this to ensure that when we get to trial, the United States will be unable to attack our case by attacking our experts.
There are a number of different ways that improper delay in the provision of medical care could result in harm to a patient -- the delay may have made your condition worse, it may have negated the possibility that certain treatment could be administered, it could have blunted the effectiveness of a certain treatment method, or it could have unnecessarily prolonged or intensified your pain and discomfort.
The fact-finder will render a verdict for the prevailing party. If the plaintiff prevails, the fact-finder will assess damages within the parameters of the judge's instructions. The verdict is then reduced to the judgment of the court. The losing party may move for a new trial. In a few jurisdictions, a plaintiff who is dissatisfied by a small judgment may move for additur. In most jurisdictions, a defendant who is dissatisfied with a large judgment may move for remittitur. Either side may take an appeal from the judgment.
The injury resulted in significant damages - Medical malpractice lawsuits are extremely expensive to litigate, frequently requiring testimony of numerous medical experts and countless hours of deposition testimony. For a case to be viable, the patient must show that significant damages resulted from an injury received due to the medical negligence. If the damages are small, the cost of pursuing the case might be greater than the eventual recovery. To pursue a medical malpractice claim, the patient must show that the injury resulted in disability, loss of income, unusual pain, suffering and hardship, or significant past and future medical bills.
This is not to say that doctors can withhold details when they believe a patient might refuse treatment they deem beneficial, though. My father, Barry J. Nace, was actually involved in a seminal case that has helped to further shape the boundaries of informed consent in such situations. Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F2d 772 (D.C. 1972) involved a surgeon who withheld the possibility of paralysis from a spine surgery patient, fearing that anxiety on the part of the individual might lead to postponing the procedure. Ultimately, the patient suffered complications and ended up paralyzed, while the surgeon claimed he was operating within community disclosure standards—an accepted idea at the time that judged whether physicians within a particular “community” would customarily convey such information in similar circumstances.