Federal employees may become personally liable for constitutional deprivation by direct participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or custom under which constitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause violations. (Gallegos v. Haggerty, Northern District of New York, 689 F.Supp. 93)

Liability insurance eventually took its seat as a crucial player in medical malpractice suits. The Massachusetts Medical Insurance Society, founded in 1908, was among the first to provide and make mention of insurance against “unjust suits for alleged malpractice” in 1919. On one hand, the nascent brand of insurance offered physicians peace of mind; settlements and damages would be covered. On the other hand, it served to assure plaintiffs that every meritorious claim should be brought forward, as that claim would almost certainly see payment.
The concept of medical responsibility is historically entrenched, with first mentions dating to the fabled Code of Hammurabi, which famously established the "eye for an eye" maxim. The code arguably offers the founding statement of medical malpractice law, reading “If the doctor has treated a gentlemen with a lancet of bronze and has caused the gentleman to die, or has opened an abscess of the eye for a gentleman with a bronze lancet, and has caused the loss of the gentleman's eye, one shall cut off his hands." Millennia later, "lancet" would become synonymous with the of concept medical responsibility in highbrow intellectual communities, and synonymous with medical malpractice itself. A famed British medical journal, The Lancet, borrows its name from the ancient code's provision. Britain would unwittingly spearhead efforts to legislate medical malpractice, establishing nomenclature and court decisions that would go on to become the ancestors of modern malpractice law.
For example, Ex parte Young allows federal courts to enjoin the enforcement of unconstitutional state (or federal) statutes on the theory that "immunity does not extend to a person who acts for the state, but [who] acts unconstitutionally, because the state is powerless to authorize the person to act in violation of the Constitution." Althouse, Tapping the State Court Resource, 44 Vand. L. Rev. 953, 973 (1991). Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (465 U.S.) ("the authority-stripping theory of Young is a fiction that has been narrowly construed"); Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho ("Young rests on a fictional distinction between the official and the State"). The Young doctrine was narrowed by the court in Edelman v. Jordan, which held that relief under Young can only be for prospective, rather than retrospective, relief; the court reasoned that the Eleventh Amendment's protection of state sovereignty requires the state's coffers to be shielded from suit. Prospective relief includes injunctions and other equitable orders, but would rarely include damages. This limitation of the Young doctrine "focused attention on the need to abrogate sovereign immunity, which led to the decision two years later in Fitzpatrick." Althouse, Vanguard States, supra, at 1791 n.216
Regarding Moviedoc's comment, "Treating a rape victim must you tell them you were raped by your brother when you were 10?"...This is probably a bit too much information. However, telling a rape victim that you (the treating therapist or Psychiatrist) are a survivor of rape is often very helpful! Rape victims often think that no one understands, and that they can not survive. Having someone right in front of them who has experienced the same thing and survived it, is therapeutic. It should never be confabulated though, either true, or not said.
The "medical standard of care" is a legal concept that refers to the type and amount of care that a similarly-skilled and trained doctor would have provided under the circumstances. In abandonment cases, standard of care basically boils down to the question, "Would a reasonable doctor have terminated the doctor-patient relationship at the same point in treatment, and in the same way?"
What are the early signs of pregnancy? Some people may know they are pregnant soon after they have conceived. Others may not be so sure, as signs of early pregnancy can be very similar to premenstrual ones. Missing a period is the most significant symptom, but there are other ways to tell if you might be pregnant. This article looks at 12 early signs. Read now
"In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right, and which leaves to every one else the like advantage ... [A] man has a property in his opinions, and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties, and free choice of the objects on which to employ them."
Even if one manages to get a court to take jurisdiction, enforcing a judgment may be nearly impossible. If the judgment is obtained in America, enforcing the judgment in a foreign nation may require filing an entirely new lawsuit to domesticate the judgment, which could take nearly as long as pursuing the case in that country in the first place. If the judgment is domestic, or if the nation agrees to domesticate the judgment of a US court, foreign laws regarding collection of judgments usually differ greatly from American laws and may interfere with seizing or levying on assets and accounts.
Many factors are taken into consideration when determining the level of compensation to which you are entitled. The severity of the injury is perhaps the most important factor. We are able to provide advice as to the reasonable value of your claim based on our years of experience in handling medical malpractice, nursing home negligence, personal injury and wrongful death cases. The following is a list of recent awards we obtained for our clients.
After meeting the notice requirements and other prerequisites, depending upon the jurisdiction an injured patient may be able to file a lawsuit against the doctor. In order to prove the doctor negligent and that he or she committed malpractice, the accident victim must first be able to show that the doctor breached the duty of care owed to the patient.
When considering whether or not you can sue a doctor for negligence, you must ensure you bring suit within the deadline set by law, called the statute of limitations. All civil claims and lawsuits must be filed within a certain period of time. In the case of Florida doctor negligence, a patient ordinarily must bring a claim or lawsuit within two years after the patient discovers—or should have discovered—the injury. At the very latest, you must file the lawsuit within four years from the date when the alleged malpractice took place.
This Health Policy Report describes the malpractice system in the United States, examines its shortcomings, and analyzes the forces that have led to past and current malpractice crises. The authors review options for reform of the U.S. malpractice system. Conventional tort reforms include caps on damages, limits on attorneys' fees, and shortening of the statute of limitations. Experts have also proposed major system reforms, such as enterprise liability or administrative compensation.
Doctor Mistake, Injury is Minor – This category encompasses situations in which a doctor misdiagnoses an injury (perhaps an ankle sprain) and then quickly corrects the misdiagnosis.  Like the no-injury scenario described above, the patient would not have a case for medical malpractice against the doctor.  Because the doctor quickly corrected the mistake, the patient suffered no damage.
I disagree about it being an issue of "personal background." Whether or not the doctor had previously lost patients from that procedure, and whether or not he had had action taken against him is professional background, not personal. "Personal" implies that it affects only the private life of the individual in question. Just because something could go wrong no matter how skilled the surgeon doesn't justify lying about the outcome of prior surgeries, especially given that the patient directly asked. It wasn't a lie of omission, it was a flat-out lie about something that the patient clearly considered important information to their decision about the surgery.
We use cookies and similar technologies to improve your browsing experience, personalize content and offers, show targeted ads, analyze traffic, and better understand you. We may share your information with third-party partners for marketing purposes. To learn more and make choices about data use, visit our Advertising Policy and Privacy Policy. By clicking “Accept and Continue” below, (1) you consent to these activities unless and until you withdraw your consent using our rights request form, and (2) you consent to allow your data to be transferred, processed, and stored in the United States.

@ Anon, since when do we not ask lawyers about their success rates?! I don't have much experience with the legal system, but to the best of my knowledge, most people research a lawyer before hiring them. I've never hired a lawyer, but if I needed legal representation, I'd certainly find out what kind of experience and success a lawyer had before asking them to represent me! (It may be somewhat less if it's a lawyer that takes the case on contingency, but then you at least have the guarantee that they're really motivated to win.)
Medical malpractice claims don't only cover errors in diagnosis and treatment. Once you've established a doctor-patient relationship, the doctor owes you a duty of care and treatment with the degree of skill, care, and diligence as possessed by, or expected of, a reasonably competent physician under the same or similar circumstances. Part of that duty of care is to be forthcoming with your diagnosis, treatment options and prognosis, as reasonably competent physicians would not lie to their patients.
×