You're extremely confident in your opinion. Have you considered the possibility that neither of you is interpreting reality on an objective level and that you are actually harming your son based on that absolutism? Saying that it's 100% true seems a bit off unless you have a photographic memory, especially when you think that they believe every word of his and are doing the wrong thing.
Under Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over cases between states. Congress, if it so chooses, may grant lower federal courts concurrent jurisdiction over cases between states. However, Congress has not yet chosen to do so. Thus, the United States Supreme Court currently has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases between state governments.
In order to prove medical negligence, one must show that their doctor deviated from the accepted level of medical care that could have been reasonably expected from a physician. Deviations that may support a medical malpractice claim include: surgical errors; medication errors; infections from hospitals; delayed diagnosis of cancer; cerebral palsy; paralysis; pulmonary embolus; spinal cord injury; strokes, heart attacks; brain injury; breast cancer; birth injury; tools, sponges, towels or objects left behind in your body after surgery; surgery on the wrong site; treatment without your informed consent; being given the wrong medication or the wrong dose; being treated with unsterile equipment; or a misdiagnosis or failure to diagnose a serious condition.
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?"
Staver Accident Injury Lawyers, P.C. provides legal advice and legal representation in Chicago, IL and throughout the State of Illinois. Prior case results and client testimonials do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future case. The review or use of information on this site does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you choose to submit information via chat, email, contact form, text message, or phone call, you agree that an attorney from Staver Accident Injury Lawyers, P.C. may contact you for a consultation as a potential client. Any information you provide will be kept confidential. If at any point you have questions, please feel free to contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Incidents of medical misdiagnoses are often higher in ERs than a doctor’s private office. The hospital staff is under tight time constraints since they usually have a waiting room full of patients to see. Therefore, they try to treat and release patients as quickly as possible. These negligent ER mistakes can be devastating since many patients who are there are in need of immediate assistance.
It is possible, however, to commit a criminal homicide based on wanton or reckless behavior. In other words, if someone acts with such disregard for the safety of others that death or serious injury is almost a given, this is often enough for certain types of criminal charges. However, doctors and other medical professionals are highly trained, very knowledgeable individuals. They are heavily regulated to prevent those with serious problems like substance abuse or mental disorders from causing harm. They are also under constant scrutiny and required to undergo continuing education to ensure that they are not engaging in techniques that could imperil a patient's life.
In 2013, BMJ Open performed a study in which they found that "failure to diagnose" accounted for the largest portion of medical malpractice claims brought against health professionals. Furthermore, the study found that the most common result of this negligence was death of the patient. The other most common categories of malpractice include negligent treatment and failure to warn.
While both doctors in the above example should be able to diagnose the flu or pneumonia with relative ease, it would be more difficult to argue that the rural doctor was negligent for missing a diagnosis of some type of exotic disease usually only seen in people from foreign countries. On the other hand, the big city infectious disease expert would likely be negligent in not making the same diagnosis.
^ C & L Enters., Inc. v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 532 U.S. 411 (2001); Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998); Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505 (1991); Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978); Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Dep't of Game of State of Wash., 433 U.S. 165 (1977); United States v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 309 U.S. 506 (1940); Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354 (1919). See also Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Madison Cnty., 605 F.3d 149, 156 (2d Cir. 2010), cert. granted, 131 S. Ct. 459, vacated and remanded, 131 S. Ct. 704 (2011) (per curiam).
While it’s impossible to know to what extent Aanning’s testimony influenced the outcome, the jury sided in favor of his colleague — and, ever since, Aanning said, he has felt haunted by his decision. Now, 77 and retired, he decided to write about his choice and why he made it in a recent column for his local newspaper, The Yankton County Observer. He also posted the article in the ProPublica Patient Safety Facebook group. Aanning, who is a member, called it, “A Surgeon’s Belated Confession.”
The principle was not mentioned in the original United States Constitution. The courts have recognized it both as a principle that was inherited from English common law, and as a practical, logical inference (that the government cannot be compelled by the courts because it is the power of the government that creates the courts in the first place).
As an analysis of the bill from Texas’ Senate Research Center notes, the “wrongful birth” cause of action was originally recognized in 1975 by the Texas Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the parents of a child with disabilities in Jacobs v. Theimer. The doctor did not inform the plaintiff that she had contracted rubella, which is known to cause “severe birth defects in infants.”
According to a study by the Department of Health and Human Service's Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found that one in ten patients that die within 90 days of a surgery are killed because of a preventable error. When medical malpractice occurs, not only are patients' lives adversely affected, so are their pocket books. According to the Department of Health and Human Service's study:
The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party. The Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act are not the broad waivers of sovereign immunity they might appear to be, as there are a number of statutory exceptions and judicially fashioned limiting doctrines applicable to both. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers federal question jurisdiction on district courts, but this statute has been held not to be a blanket waiver of sovereign immunity on the part of the federal government.
Among the acts or omissions that may potentially support a medical malpractice claim are the failure to properly diagnose a disease or medical condition, the failure to provide appropriate treatment for a medical condition, and unreasonable delay in treating a diagnosed medical condition. In some jurisdictions a medical malpractice action may be allowed even without a mistake from the doctor, based upon principles of informed consent, where a patient was not informed of possible consequences of a course of treatment and would have declined the medical treatment had proper information been provided in advance.
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.