While some medical errors are readily apparent, many times a serious hospital error is not immediately obvious. You may have a suspicion that you or your loved one has been harmed by a hospital’s substandard care. In most instances, you will need to have your medical records reviewed by independent medical experts to determine whether a preventable hospital error occurred.
The ancient Romans also had a legal foundation for medical malpractice law. Their first written laws, on the XII Tables, included the concepts of delicts, iniuria, and damnum iniuria datum. Delicts were types of wrongful conduct that involved penalties. Inuria and damnum iniuria datum were two types of delict. Inuria referred to personal injuries, and damnum iniuria datum referred to injury of property, which could include slaves. Inuria only included injuries that were intentionally caused. A person could be compensated for pain of mind or body as well as monetary expenses resulting from the injury. Damnum iniuria datum also included harm caused by negligent actions, but only mandated compensation for economic losses caused by harm to property. For example, if someone’s slave required medical attention as the result of another person’s negligent actions, they could demand payment through damnum iniuria datum. Eventually, this law was expanded to apply to free men in addition to slaves (O’Connel and Carpenter 1983).
Prior to his presidency, Abraham Lincoln was a distinguished medical malpractice attorney, taking on cases for physicians and patients alike. Lincoln represented two defendant physicians who treated a man when a chimney fell on him. The physicians applied splints to the patient's legs, assuming he would not survive his injuries. The patient survived and was left with a crooked right leg when the splints were removed. The man recruited six attorneys, 15 physician witnesses and 21 other witnesses in his suit against the two physicians. Lincoln presented the town's only other 12 physicians. Harking to the modern statute of limitations and the importance of fresh and compelling evidence, Lincoln believed the best defense was the passage of time and so he obtained many postponements. The trial resulted in a hung jury.
If you have been injured by someone acting on behalf of the Federal Government, you may be able to sue the Government under the FTCA. Because suing the United States Government under the FTCA is trickier than suing a private entity or private citizen, you should retain an attorney who is experienced in handling these complex cases. The FTCA attorneys at Suthers Law Firm have successfully represented individuals in medical malpractice and personal injury cases against the Government, and have the requisite experience and resources to take on the Government. If you or a loved one has been injured at the hands of the Government, contact Suthers Law Firm for a free consultation.
Have you been injured due to military hospital medical malpractice? Under United States tort law, federal employees are not personally liable for most torts they commit in the course of their work. Instead, you can only hold those employees responsible using a special law called the Federal Tort Claims Act. This includes Army, Navy, and Air Force hospitals.In some respects, FTCA cases are quite different from ordinary tort cases. In such a case, the injured party may not file a lawsuit against the government until he or she has exhausted all administrative remedies. The injured party must first file an administrative claim with the proper agency of the United States government within a limited amount of time. Whitehurst, Harkness, Brees, Cheng, Alsaffar, Higginbotham, and Jacob, PLLC, has experience in representing injured parties at the administrative claim stage and throughout trial in federal courts all over the United States.
We consider all cases on a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA), also known as a No Win No Fee agreement. This means that if you are not successful in pursuing your claim, we will not charge you any of our base legal costs. If we are successful with your claim, we submit the costs which we have incurred in pursuing the claim to the defendant/s and or their insurers. We are also entitled to charge a success fee, which will be deducted from your recoverable damages at the end of the claim. However, we can offer a competitive success fee and our aim will always to beat a success fee offer by any other firm. This means that we aim to beat the terms offered by other law firms and you will receive more of your compensation.
Again – so what? Do you really want to be going to a doctor that injured you and caused you pain and suffering? There are much better options out there. You found this doctor. You’ll find another one. There are numerous resources available to help you find a new, more competent physician. A simple Google search of “find doctor New York” will yield a multitude of websites designed to do just that. If you have health insurance, contact your insurance company. They can usually provide you with a list of doctors in your area that are covered by your plan. Also, don’t under-estimate the value of your friends and family as a helpful resource regardless of whether or not you have insurance. Talk to them to find out what doctors with whom they entrust their health. In no time at all, you will be sure to find the right doctor for you.
Many people don’t bring a meritorious lawsuit against their doctor because of fear concerning family and friends. Only you can decide for yourself whether bringing a lawsuit against your physician is the right thing for you to do. Only you know the pain and suffering that you have endured – nobody else. Only you know the extent of your lost wages, medical bills, and injury.
"Many cases of psychiatric malpractice are never reported because the victims are already emotionally unstable." With that sentence alone, the author condemns anyone with a valid complaint who has visited a psychiatrist even one time for simple, passing, stress-related difficulties, to risking even more by challenging perhaps the most elusive, powerful professional in existence.
Bivens actions, again, are by no means an exclusive remedy for redressing abuses of authority by federal government employees, even in a political context. In the celebrated case of Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General, 596 F.2d. 58 (1979), 444 U.S. 903 (1979) (cert. denied) one of the many claims of the plaintiff, a Trotskyite communist organization, was for 193 surreptitious entries or burglaries committed by the F.B.I. Another set of claims was for the use of disruptive informants in the organization, which successfully proved itself to be a non-violent, educational group more involved in promoting and discussing ideas rather than in any violent act.
While an investigation against your doctor could lead to the revocation of his license, such action is rare. Only in the most extreme cases, where the Board feels that your doctor is a threat to the well-being of his patients, will his or her license be revoked. The Board could decide to take lesser action such as limiting his license, issuing a censure and reprimand, or require him or her to attend training.
The civil tort of assault is premised on the fact that a person says something or otherwise implies that he or she will have some type of harmful or offensive contact with the victim and the victim has reasonable apprehension of this contact occurring. This tort does not require that the contact actually occur, but merely requires that the victim has the apprehension that it will. In the medical context, this may occur if a doctor threatens to take medical action against the patient’s will.
The administration of anesthesia poses a high risk during a surgical procedure. This is the reason why anesthesiologists practice such a focused medicine. Anesthesia errors can lead to a brain injury or organ failures. Anesthesia errors can also lead to death via asphyxia or heart failure. In some cases, medication administered to a patient prior to a surgical procedure can affect the drugs used for anesthesia. An anesthesiologist must thoroughly examine the patient’s medical records before making a decision on the type or mixture of drugs to use to anesthetize the patient for surgery. A failure to do so can result in serious injury to the patient and this may be grounds for a negligence claim.
Anyone familiar with the Hippocratic oath understands the undeniable bond between medical care and ethics—ideally, physicians are driven by the desire to help patients, not hurt them. Yet, harm does sometimes occur, and patients have the right to hold such doctors accountable in a court of law. While the topic of not telling the truth poses more of an ethical question than a legal one, there are established legal boundaries for medical professionals that, when crossed, could justify a lawsuit.