free
hit counter
Medical Malpractice Baltimore | Medical Malpractice Boston

So, the lawyer sues the doctor. The doctor being sued has malpractice insurance (most states won’t allow you to practice without it). So the insurance company pays for a lawyer to defend the doctor, as well as an expert witness to evaluate the case and attest that there was no malpractice. Notice that the patient’s lawyer still hasn’t spent any money. The doctor’s insurance company has spent a lot of money on expert witnesses and lawyers.


In order to take legal action against a medical doctor for malpractice, you cannot just simply file a lawsuit with the court. Rather, you must first send a notice to the doctor, indicating to him or her that you are planning to file a lawsuit for medical malpractice. After filing the notice, there may be a waiting period before the injured patient is eligible to file a lawsuit.
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.

The law protects you against any doctor providing you with substandard care. It is possible to sue a doctor who works in an NHS hospital, a private practice or a GP's surgery. Also the law understands that if a doctor has been negligent towards you, you may not always be able to make a claim for yourself. It is possible to sue a doctor for negligence on behalf of yourself, your child, an elderly relative, an individual who has passed away or another loved one who is unable to make the claim themselves.
I think general practice should operate 08:00 – 20:00 every day including weekends and bank holidays. It does not automatically mean doctors, nurses and ancillary staff working longer hours overall. Nor does it mean that the same levels of staffing will be necessary throughout the opening hours and some weekday sessions might be reduced to allow for the additional weekend ones. Equally it should not require the full receptionist, pharmacist and other support services throughout the weekends. I don’t see any attempt at backdoor privatisation through this policy – doctors are already self-employed in any case. If patients want to have private medical treatment at their entire expense I don’t understand any objections to that and, to the extent that it takes some of the pressure off the NHS, it is probably a good thing on balance.
In this article, we will discuss whether you can sue for medical malpractice years after treatment. The short answer is, yes, you can, since most states give you two to three years to bring a claim after malpractice occurs. The longer answer is, it depends on the type of injury and the state in which the claim is brought. Below, we will go through various examples of when the "countdown" begins for purposes of the statute of limitations deadline.
The process for filing a medical malpractice lawsuit in Connecticut is quite complex and requires the attentive eye of a seasoned attorney. At Wocl Leydon, our team has extensive experience pursuing actions against medical professionals who act negligently and cause unnecessary harm. We know how to help individuals and families recover financially after suffering an injury or wrongful death at the hands of a medical provider.
The 1960's and 1970's also saw the emergence of the doctrine of informed consent. Modern medicine requires that medical professionals disclose all of the associated risks that accompany a given procedure. This way, if a treatment or procedure entails serious or deterrent risk, the patient may make an informed personal decision to refuse it, such is their right. During these two decades, it became a fundamental tenant of biomedical ethics that a patient is informed of all the risks in a procedure. Failure to warn patients of possible adverse outcomes could become an additional source of liability for physicians and medical professionals. Legislatures eventually got down to the task of explicitly defining what information must be disclosed, and what constitute a "lack" of informed consent. The definition tiptoed around the issues of emergency care, patient-provider relationships, “common” knowledge, consent on behalf of a minor, and whether a given risk would deter a “reasonable” person from accepting treatment. Lawmakers set about drafting ironclad informed consent law that covered the ifs, ands and buts of most conceivable situations that required informed medical consent. In the same era, courts discarded the doctrine of charitable immunity which had previously immunized charitable institutions from suit.
The act of filing a complaint against a physician triggers a state medical board investigation of the physician for possible disciplinary action.  Realistically, there is only an extremely small chance that your complaint will result in disciplinary action against the physician.  Because state medical boards are composed of doctors, they likely feel a personal and professional kinship with the people they regulate and may be hesitant to discipline another member of their own profession.
I also told the truth about my lie because I have been helping some of these plaintiffs’ lawyers with their cases. It seems that the courtroom is not the arena for adjudication of medical right or wrong. I shared my story to give an explicit example of why you can’t always rely on physician testimony in court. I think that’s the big reason. There’s got to be a different way to help people who have been medically harmed. Looking to the legal system is like mixing oil and water.
Even though current compensation awards take longer lifespans into account, there could still be a mismatch between the assumed lifespan and the actual lifespan of the patient. An arbitration agreement that contracts medical providers to cover the cost of health care for the actual lifetime of the patient removes this risk, Kellerman says, and it would provide the greatest benefit. Waiting for five to eight years for a court resolution is avoided, and there is no erosion of compensation by contingency fees (up to 25 percent), as the costs of the mediation are usually prescribed by fixed tariffs. The process does not place an emotional or financial burden on the injured party, and resolution, if done proactively from the outset, could take less than two years.

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.
Cause: The link between a person’s act or failure to act and the resulting injury to the plaintiff. Imagine that a nurse practitioner did not record on the chart a patient’s current medications. If this led to a doctor prescribing a drug that was contraindicated with drugs the patient was already taking, the nurse practitioner’s inaction caused any resulting harm to the patient.

The Syracuse medical malpractice lawyers of Michaels & Smolak have recovered millions of dollars for clients injured by medical malpractice and for other injuries to cover their medical bills, lost earnings, pain and suffering, and more. If you or a loved one has been a victim of medical malpractice, contact us for a free consultation with an experienced lawyer who can inform you of your legal rights and maximize your compensation.


Duty of care was established not with patient's rights in mind per se, rather it was founded in, as worded by historian Harvey Teff, "the mystique of medicine and the strength of its professionalization.” The common layperson can not and will not comprehend the intricacies of medicine, so no objective standard may be set by non-medical professionals.


The doctor acted negligently. The doctor acted negligently if the doctor failed to ask you certain questions, forgot to send the blood test to the proper lab, gave a fake name for your illness and other practices which a similar doctor with the same experience would never have done. To prove this, you will have to show that a reasonable doctor would have recognized your medical problem from your symptoms and diagnosed you appropriately.
Under NO circumstances is your doctor allowed to leak, alter, or otherwise use your medical information against you in retaliation for filing a malpractice lawsuit. There are severe criminal, civil, and judicial penalties for taking such illegal actions. For engaging in an act such as altering your medical records, your doctor could face anywhere from criminal fraud charges to the loss of his medical license.
Of course, there is never any reason for any hospital to put patients at risk by offering negligent or inadequate diagnosis, treatment, or care. Hospitals are regulated and licensed under a number of state and federal laws, and hospitals must adhere to policies, standards, and procedures that enhance and protect the health and well-being of their patients. When a patient suffers injury or harm because a hospital’s employees have been negligent, the hospital may have legal liability.
There is only a limited time during which a medical malpractice lawsuit can be filed. In the United States, these time limits are set by statute. In civil law systems, similar provisions are usually part of the civil code or criminal code and are often known collectively as "periods of prescription" or "prescriptive periods." The length of the time period and when that period begins vary per jurisdiction and type of malpractice. Therefore, each state has different time limits set.[18] For example, in Pennsylvania, there is a two-year statute of limitation,[20] but in other states the limitations period may be longer. Most states have special provisions for minors that may potentially extend the statute of limitations for a minor who has been injured as the result of medical malpractice.[21]
Figures released in September 2015 by the Democratic Alliance’s Gauteng shadow MEC for health and member of the provincial legislature, Jack Bloom, show that R540 million was paid out by the Gauteng Provincial Department of Health as compensation for medical malpractice between 2010 and September 2015. This is money that would otherwise have been used to provide health services, Bloom says.

For example, if a doctor prescribes a medication without first asking you about allergies, and you have a severe adverse reaction, this could be a case of negligence. But if you failed to mention one of your allergies when asked, or the doctor could have had no way of knowing that you could be allergic to the medicine prescribed, there was no negligence, and you would be unable to sue for malpractice.


Copyright 2018 Rocket Lawyer Incorporated. Rocket Lawyer provides information and software only. Rocket Lawyer is not a "lawyer referral service" and does not provide legal advice or participate in any legal representation. Rocket Lawyer is not a law firm or a substitute for an attorney or law firm. Use of Rocket Lawyer is subject to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Even though current compensation awards take longer lifespans into account, there could still be a mismatch between the assumed lifespan and the actual lifespan of the patient. An arbitration agreement that contracts medical providers to cover the cost of health care for the actual lifetime of the patient removes this risk, Kellerman says, and it would provide the greatest benefit. Waiting for five to eight years for a court resolution is avoided, and there is no erosion of compensation by contingency fees (up to 25 percent), as the costs of the mediation are usually prescribed by fixed tariffs. The process does not place an emotional or financial burden on the injured party, and resolution, if done proactively from the outset, could take less than two years.
You must decide how you are going to fund the legal process. Most parties Personal Finance spoke to warned that the legal process is adversarial, long, arduous and emotionally and financially draining. How long it takes depends on the availability of court dates in a creaking, overloaded legal system. At your first appointment, your lawyer will give you a broad indication of the process involved and the likely costs. There are four options:
Losing a loved one is never easy, especially when the loss could have been avoided. Often in cases of medical malpractice, those who are left behind after a loved one's passing wonder why the doctor is not going to jail for murder. Is it possible for one to charge a doctor with murder when their treatment of a patient was so poor as to result in death?
Failure to warn a patient of known risks. Doctors have a duty to warn patients of known risks of a procedure or course of treatment -- this is known as the duty of informed consent. If a patient, once properly informed of possible risks, would have elected not to go through with the procedure, the doctor may be liable for medical malpractice if the patient is injured by the procedure (in a way that the doctor should have warned could happen). (To learn more, read Nolo's article Medical Malpractice: Informed Consent.)

One of the most common reasons that a physician may be accused of medical malpractice is due to the failure to diagnose. This is premised on the idea that the patient needlessly suffered for an extended period of time because the doctor failed to properly evaluate tests or run tests that should have reasonably notified him or her of the potential diagnosis. Other examples of medical malpractice include misdiagnosing a medical condition, failing to provide appropriate treatment, causing an unreasonable delay in treating a diagnosed condition, violating HIPAA laws, performing wrong-site surgery and performing surgery on the wrong patient.
So, the lawyer sues the doctor. The doctor being sued has malpractice insurance (most states won’t allow you to practice without it). So the insurance company pays for a lawyer to defend the doctor, as well as an expert witness to evaluate the case and attest that there was no malpractice. Notice that the patient’s lawyer still hasn’t spent any money. The doctor’s insurance company has spent a lot of money on expert witnesses and lawyers.

A study by RAND Corp. researchers published in October 2014 in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that laws restricting medical-malpractice suits do not reduce the amount of "defensive medicine" or reduce health-care costs. The researchers, led by Daniel A. Waxman, examined 3.8 million Medicare patient records from hospital emergency departments from 1997 to 2011, comparing care in three states that enacted strict malpractice reform laws about a decade earlier (Georgia, Texas and South Carolina) to care in neighboring states that did not enact such laws. The study found that the laws had no effect on whether doctors ordered resource-intensive care (e.g., CT or MRI scans and hospitalization).[55][56][57]


The 1960's and 1970's also saw the emergence of the doctrine of informed consent. Modern medicine requires that medical professionals disclose all of the associated risks that accompany a given procedure. This way, if a treatment or procedure entails serious or deterrent risk, the patient may make an informed personal decision to refuse it, such is their right. During these two decades, it became a fundamental tenant of biomedical ethics that a patient is informed of all the risks in a procedure. Failure to warn patients of possible adverse outcomes could become an additional source of liability for physicians and medical professionals. Legislatures eventually got down to the task of explicitly defining what information must be disclosed, and what constitute a "lack" of informed consent. The definition tiptoed around the issues of emergency care, patient-provider relationships, “common” knowledge, consent on behalf of a minor, and whether a given risk would deter a “reasonable” person from accepting treatment. Lawmakers set about drafting ironclad informed consent law that covered the ifs, ands and buts of most conceivable situations that required informed medical consent. In the same era, courts discarded the doctrine of charitable immunity which had previously immunized charitable institutions from suit.

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Nolo ® Self-help services may not be permitted in all states. The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or will be formed by use of the site. The attorney listings on this site are paid attorney advertising. In some states, the information on this website may be considered a lawyer referral service. Please reference the Terms of Use and the Supplemental Terms for specific information related to your state. Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms, Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy.
×