A 2011 study in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that 75% of physicians in "low-risk" specialties and virtually 100% of physicians in "high-risk" specialties could expect to face a malpractice claim during their careers. However, the authors also noted that the vast majority of malpractice claims did not lead to any indemnity payments.[22]
Not true! There are thousands of physicians sued successfully every year without ending in the loss of their licenses or practices. Although your doctor will have to spend some time defending the suit, throughout the process he will most likely still be able to see his patients and conduct his life as normal. Furthermore, after the conclusion of the suit, he will most likely go back to treating his patients – albeit, hopefully, more carefully this time.
Typically, nurses, medical technicians, and support staff are hospital employees. As long as the employee was doing something job-related when he or she caused an injury to a patient, the patient can usually sue the hospital for resulting damages. For example, if a registered nurse (R.N.) employed by the hospital injects the wrong medication into an IV "push," and the patient ends up suffering harm as a result, then the hospital could probably be considered liable for the R.N.'s mistake.
As for your attempt to on the one hand to frame doctors as greedy drug dealers responsible for for most of this countries drug abuse, while at the same time trying to shame them into believing that theirs is a selfless avocation, some kind of priesthood where anyone not willing to martyr themselves to an ungrateful public, shouldn’t be able to practice. -Well i think you’d better put down whatever pills you’ve been swallowing, and come back to reality. Medicine is a profession, and its filled with human beings, not saints or demons. Human beings who will choose their own well being over that of a potential enemy every time just as YOU would. And greedy lawyers, unscrupulous patients, and unwitting juries all over this country are increasingly causing doctors to view their patients as potential enemies.
The Seattle medical malpractice lawyers at The Tinker Law Firm, PLLC can help if you have reason to believe that you or a loved one was harmed by a negligent breakdown in the communication of medical test results. Our attorneys have recovered millions of dollars on behalf of those injured by negligent medical care. For a free review of your case, complete our online contact form.
I find it impossible that he does not know about my illness. He has 23 yrs of Experience. Commercials about my condition are every other day and the medication he refused to give is on all the time. that been said, it is not possible that he does not know from a common sense perspective, putting that aside, he did not bother to ask about my symptoms so he can prescribe something for the symptoms he knows. That is neglect. I told him that I take a med that suppresses the immune system, he could have done blood labs to check for infections or just to humor me or put me at ease until I get another doc.
When you consider the time it takes for your attorney to conduct an initial investigation, gather the facts and early evidence, track down a medical expert, conduct required settlement negotiations and/or go through the medical screening panel or other pre-suit requirements, you can begin to see why most medical malpractice plaintiffs are in a scramble to beat the limitations deadline from the moment they decide to sue. (To find your state's time limit to file a medical malpractice case, see this chart.)
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.
×