Most medical procedures or treatments involve some risk. It is the doctor's responsibility to give the patient information about a particular treatment or procedure so the patient can decide whether to undergo the treatment, procedure, or test. This process of providing essential information to the patient and getting the patient's agreement to a certain medical procedure or treatment is called informed consent.
When someone is victimized by medical malpractice at a municipal hospital in New York City, a medical malpractice claim must be handled somewhat differently from a claim against a private hospital. Municipal hospitals are governmental entities administered by city officials – the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) – so the procedures for legal disputes are slightly different.
According to the Institute of Medicine, up to 98,000 people die in hospitals in the United States every year as a result of medical errors that could have been prevented.  These medical errors are the eighth leading cause of death in the United States, which is higher than motor vehicle accidents. Victims of medical malpractice and their family members do have legal rights to sue a hospital in the event that negligent medical care causes an injury or death.
It doesn’t matter that “addiction” can be either physical or psychologic and that there is no reliable way to determine when addiction occurs. Tick’s bill doesn’t define addiction. It also doesn’t matter that people can get addicted to pretty much anything … alcohol, illegal drugs, porn, gambling, even collecting Cabbage Patch Kids. Tick’s bill only cares about those evil doctors. Beware internet service providers, you could be next on the list if your subscribers get addicted to the internet.
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.
We'll see what ends up happening on retrial, but I thought this was an interesting emerging area of law. What if the issue wasn't technical incompetence? How much "personal background" should a doctor have to tell a patient before treatment can begin? Medical school grades? Failure to pay income tax? Should doctors be required to disclose to patients the fact that they've been treated for mental illness themselves?
People have a tendency to downplay their injuries because they do not want to be seen by others as complaining or needy. In fact, those that are more severely injured tend to downplay their injuries the most. Before you are convinced that your injuries don’t warrant some type of compensation, it is best to be examined by an independent medical expert. You may be entitled to lost wages, medical expenses, or compensation for pain and suffering.
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.
Most medical procedures or treatments involve some risk. It is the doctor's responsibility to give the patient information about a particular treatment or procedure so the patient can decide whether to undergo the treatment, procedure, or test. This process of providing essential information to the patient and getting the patient's agreement to a certain medical procedure or treatment is called informed consent.
Doctor Liability, Damages Are Small – Some states have enacted tort reforms that apply caps to the amount of money an injured patient can recover from a medical malpractice claim.  Under these caps, a patient may only be entitled to a $250,000 verdict.  While this amount of money may seem large, the patient must share that money with expert witnesses, investigators, and attorneys.  In the end, the patient’s financial recovery may be slight.  Attorneys may hesitate to take a case if it seems like the recovery will be negligible.  However, some patients are more concerned with filing suit as a matter of principle than as a means of financial recovery.  Sometimes lawyers are willing to take a case to help the client make such a statement.
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.
The biggest hurdle for patients to get over in bringing a claim is a law that sets up a defence for all professionals accused of negligence.  It says that if the professional acted in a way that was widely accepted in Australia by that professional’s peers as competent professional practice then the professional is not liable.  Note that ‘widely accepted’ does not necessarily mean that the majority of professionals have to agree to the practice.
That is one of the main reasons the legal system exists! To compensate people who been injured by their doctors’ mistakes! If your doctor has made a medical mistake, he may well have committed what is known in the legal community as negligence. In order to prove negligence, your attorney will have to show that (a) your doctor owed you a duty of care, (b) your doctor breached that duty of care, (c) your doctor’s breach caused you injury, and (d) you did in fact suffer an injury.
Disclaimer: Communications between you and LegalZoom are protected by our Privacy Policy but not by the attorney-client privilege or as work product. LegalZoom provides access to independent attorneys and self-help services at your specific direction. We are not a law firm or a substitute for an attorney or law firm. We cannot provide any kind of advice, explanation, opinion, or recommendation about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options, selection of forms or strategies. Your access to the website is subject to our Terms of Use.
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.
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.

Plaintiffs' lawyers say that the Texas law prevents patients from getting compensation or damages even in cases where the patient clearly deserves it. In particular, the “willful and wanton” negligence standard for emergency care, which requires that the harm to the patient be intentional, makes it impossible to win a case where the harm is clearly negligent but not willful.[48]
The terms negligence and malpractice are often used interchangeably. Strictly speaking, negligence is a failure to “exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise” in similar circumstances. Medical malpractice, according to Andre Calitz, the chief operating officer for personal injury law practice Joseph’s Incorporated in Johannesburg, is an evaluation of conduct measured against a standard of medical care established by the medical fraternity.

Let’s suppose that the doctor prescribed a medication that was wrong for you and you had an adverse reaction. But you were also prone to strokes, and you had a stroke. Unless the medication is known to increase the risk of strokes, the medication did not cause your condition, so while the doctor was negligent, he or she did not cause your predicament through that negligence.
People go to see the doctor when ill or after suffering a serious injury. When you make an appointment to see your doctor, you trust that the doctor will help to improve your condition or injury – not make it worse. Doctors and other healthcare providers hold people’s lives in their hands. Consequently, when providers make serious medical mistakes, they can and should be held responsible for their negligence.
“Twenty years ago there was little that could be done to make the life of a disabled person better, save for making them more comfortable, which a kindly, unqualified person could do. Now, we have teams of allied professionals, such as speech therapists and physiotherapists, all of whom have to visit regularly to have any effect on the progress of the patient. These services, while essential for the patient, have contributed to higher compensation awards. In some ways, the high awards are a victory for the many successes in medicine, so much more can be done to improve the lives of people disabled in one way or another,” Irish said.
Medical malpractice involves an injury brought about by a breach in the duty of care that a doctor or another medical professional owes their patient. A glaring example might be if the doctor sewed you up with a medical tool left inside of your body, but a less obvious one might be misdiagnosing you and treating a disease that you do not have while neglecting to treat the one they failed to diagnose.
This list is not exhaustive. Nor is every item on the list a malpractice lawsuit per se. Recall the four elements above. For a psychiatrist to be liable for malpractice, he or she must have failed to take reasonable care, and the patient must have suffered injury as a result. A doctor can take reasonable care and still make an incorrect judgment call, so not every incorrect decision is actionable as malpractice. However, some items on the list—for example, engaging in a sexual relationship with a patient—almost always lead to prevailing malpractice claims.

A steady uptick in medical malpractice cases can be attributed, in part at least, to the decline of religious fatalism. It was a pervasive belief that misfortune and injury were acts of God, meant to be construed as punishment for moral and religious transgressions. Overturning this belief may be considered a far-off ripple effect of The Enlightenment, a historical ‘moment' at which prominent European thinkers began to reject the notion that everything was determined by the will of an omnipotent God. As philosophers and scientists alike began to promulgate the idea that willful human action was the true determinant of fortune and misfortune, a fringe effect was the rise of medical malpractice litigation, a century or so later. As people began to accept that injury and misfortune could be attributed to human error and not God's will, they began to assert an entitlement to recompense if they suffered as a result of human error. This was a brick in the foundation of medical malpractice litigation.
To establish whether or not your doctor has been negligent they will have to be shown to have been in a position where they owed you/the patient a duty of care and that you or the patient suffered direct harm as a result of their negligent management of this care. The decisions the doctor made and the treatment they gave will be assessed. If it is found that they acted in a way in which other doctors would not have acted, and this resulted in a negative effect, you will have grounds to make a successful medical negligence claim.
In the UK, does the General Medical Council require physicians to report criminal convictions and is this open to the public? What about malpractice issues? I live in the U.S. and in my state (requirements may vary by state) physicians are required to report criminal convictions, malpractice, etc and this is posted online for the public to access. The problem is physicians who are convicted of crimes (like my former psychiatrist) don't always report it, so I'm not sure how effective it is in practice. There is no absolute right to privacy for physicians, at least not in my state.
Afin de vous offrir une meilleure expérience utilisateur, nous souhaitons vous proposer des publicités pertinentes qui vous seront plus utiles. Par exemple, lorsque vous recherchez un film, nous utilisons vos données de recherche et votre localisation pour afficher les cinémas les plus proches. Nous utilisons également ces informations pour vous montrer des publicités pour des films similaires qui pourraient vous intéresser à l’avenir. À l’instar d’Oath, nos partenaires peuvent également afficher des publicités qui sont, selon eux, adaptées à vos centres d’intérêt.
That is one of the main reasons the legal system exists! To compensate people who been injured by their doctors’ mistakes! If your doctor has made a medical mistake, he may well have committed what is known in the legal community as negligence. In order to prove negligence, your attorney will have to show that (a) your doctor owed you a duty of care, (b) your doctor breached that duty of care, (c) your doctor’s breach caused you injury, and (d) you did in fact suffer an injury.
At some point, the hospital might make an offer to settle the case. So, it is important for the patient to determine the value of the case. The patient should consider all possible losses and harm stemming from the malpractice, including, past and future medical expenses, past and future wage losses, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life (the decreased value of a person’s life as a result of the injury, measured by changes in lifestyle, such as the loss of the ability to enjoy sports, walk or play with children), and loss of consortium (losses to family members as a result of the injury, measured by loss of companionship or the loss of the ability to engage in certain activities).

The medical industry uniquely benefits from broad autonomy and self-regulation. Standardization of care and general oversight work to balance physician autonomy, and some may say they even erode that autonomy to an extent. Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) enforce patterns of practice to which providers must adhere. Emerging technologies throughout the 20th century paved the way for new treatment methods, but they also “raised patient expectations [while] multiplying the possibilities for mishaps.” In an examination of the interplay of autonomy and oversight, the Drexel Law Review wrote "Standardization and oversight serve to further reinforce patient expectations. By way of contrast, a disorganized profession typified by idiosyncratic practices discourages perceptions of consistent quality. Formal organization of the medical profession was intended, in part, to counter this characterization.”


After a suit is filed, both parties gather information from the other. For example, the plaintiff’s attorney will request their client’s medical records from the defendant. There will then be interrogatory forms (a set of written questions to clarify facts) submitted by each attorney to the opposing party, and depositions (formal meetings in which an individual  –  such as the plaintiff, the defendant, or an expert for either party  –  is questioned under oath). A record of these depositions is taken for potential use in court. Usually, the people who attend the deposition include attorneys for both parties and the court reporter. In some cases, the plaintiff or defendant can also choose to attend to observe, but does not talk or ask questions. Sometimes, the defendant and their attorney will agree to settle the case prior to court  –  that is, the defendant pays the plaintiff a mutually agreed upon amount called a “settlement.”
But Tick has good reasons for proposing his bill. Since people lived without drugs before, Pharmacologist Tick doesn’t believe that drugs are the only way to treat pain now. That’s true. Patients in cancer pain could always try incantations and faith healing instead of popping pills. Or patients in pain could bust out some whiskey and a bunch of bullets to bite on … after they take anger management classes so they can purchase the bullets. Oops. That’s Florida. Sorry. Wrong state. Double oops. Alcohol could be addictive. Bad example.
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.
One exception to the general rule of informed consent is that of therapeutic privilege. While uncommon, doctor’s cannot be held responsible for untruths about a patient’s health when a worse threat could exist with complete disclosure. Such an example would be when the revelation of a debilitating condition might prompt suicidal actions on the part of the patient.
×