However, the increasing inefficiency of the HPCSA has ensured that this is no longer the preferred route for potential litigants. The grave state of the organisation is now official; a task team appointed by the Minister of Health reported its findings in November 2015, describing the HPCSA as suffering from “multi-system organisational dysfunction”.
The United States Government will pay $42 million to the parents of a young child who suffered a permanent brain injury, resulting from improper use of forceps during his delivery. After a six day trial in Federal Court in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the verdict for $42 million was rendered by U.S. District Court Judge Sylvia Rambo. The parents sued the Federal Government in a malpractice claim involving an Ob/Gyn physician, who was employed at a federal facility. The lawsuit claimed that the doctor improperly used forceps on the baby’s head during the delivery, which caused skull fractures and bleeding on the brain that resulted in permanent brain damage. Evidence presented during trial showed that the now five year old boy cannot speak, read or write and eventually will require a motorized wheelchair to get around.
So heres where everyone gets mad at me….. Yes, Im saying this is 90% my original DR.’s fault. Im on disability and not able to see ANY dr. i want – I tried to reason with her to NOT increase the dosage. Did i end up taking the patch and pills prescribed? YES. But i was also told by the prescribing DR. that addiction would NOT be an issue. Tolerance, yes.. but specifically NOT ADDICTION. Its in her clinic notes, and I have copies of all of them.
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.
A physician would be insane to risk his hard earned career by continuing to prescribe controlled substances to all the pts who cross his threshold. Physicians already place their pts’ health above their self interests. What profession do you know of that you are regularly expected to miss holidays and special occasions? Work long shifts overnight? Law, business, engineering? I think it’s reasonable to say that a pts’ wellbeing should not supersede my ability to lead a somewhat normal life and provide for my family (who did not take the Hippocratic Oath).
We offer a completely free, no obligation Medical Negligence Claim Assessment. We understand that suing your GP may not be an easy decision so we are here to help and advise you. We will take the time to listen to your complaint, and then explain whether you can sue a doctor, how long it might take, how you can fund the claim and how much compensation you might receive.
Medical malpractice litigation has evolved dramatically since the Code of Hammurabi was written. Certain fundamental principles – namely, the responsibility of medical professionals to prevent unnecessary injury and death – remain unchanged. However, the legal landscape is constantly shifting. Major controversy surrounds how to best improve medical malpractice law and hospital culture so that medical professionals can truly focus on providing the best care to their patients. This was the idea behind many tort reform measures, but it remains unclear whether these changes actually improved patient care, or just stopped patients from obtaining the compensation they needed and were entitled to. ADR may be a win-win solution for patients and medical professionals, increasing case efficiency and decreasing animosity between opposing parties.
That’s impossible. A reputable personal injury attorney will not charge you for an initial consultation. Michaels & Smolak will give you a free consultation. If we decide to represent you, we will charge you on a contingency fee basis, which is usually 1/3 of the net recovery we obtain for you, whether from a settlement or from a jury. Since the initial consultation is free, why wait? Contact us today for a free consultation.
I do get fed up with media criticism of a “failing NHS”; it’s not failing – it’s doing an incredibly good job in the circumstances. I also get fed up with my generation being blamed for living too long and putting a strain on the NHS. The failure of planning for the country’s future needs goes back to the early years of this century and cannot be laid at the door of the present government. The government either has to limit the rise in population, or invest in the resources to meet its demands, or do a bit of both. Doing neither has got us to where we are today.
Many people mistakenly choose to file medical malpractice lawsuits because they are unhappy with the results of their treatment. However, a poor result -- even death -- does not always equate to malpractice. Medicine is an inexact science. Even the most routine procedure can result in complications both foreseen and unforeseen. There are no guarantees that any treatment, no matter how commonplace, will be successful. As such, it is possible -- and even common when it comes to some procedures -- for doctors to do everything right and still fail to obtain a good result.
Medical malpractice suits are complex, and you will need the help of a specialized personal injury attorney. If you have reason to believe that you have been a victim of malpractice, and would like to investigate the possibility of bringing your ex-doctor to justice, get in touch with Herrman & Herrman’s experienced personal injury attorneys to discuss your case. We have brought unprofessional medical personnel to account for their carelessness in surgery, prescription of medication, incorrect or failed diagnosis, birth injuries and more.
A word of caution on the types of medical errors described below: Keep in mind that just because a doctor made a mistake or a patient was unhappy with a course of treatment or its outcome, that doesn't mean malpractice necessarily occurred. In order to meet the legal definition of medical malpractice, the doctor or medical provider must have been negligent in some way -- meaning the doctor was not reasonably skillful or competent, and that incompetence harmed the patient. (To learn more about what does and does not constitute medical malpractice, see Nolo's article Medical Malpractice Basics.)
To add indirectly to Jeremy,s post a “startling ” piece of news has reached me from the Home of far-right Capitalism in relation to health care .AS you know the biggest debt in the US is health care not a mortgage many people taking their whole lives to pay off the medical charges “Obamacare ” was introduced but highly criticised by insurance companies and BB who were in the medical business . But hold on the great State of Colorado could become the first US State to replace it with —hold on —- an equivalent of the UK NHS — dont all jump up with indignation shouting –never ! we wont let it its “un- American ” they actually want to impose a tax hike on Colorado residents to pay for it –$38 billion of 10 % on the payroll tax –notice in this country cameron is using that as an excuse to Privatise the NHS . It would mean all residents would have EQUAL care – no gold-silver or bronze care and they could chose any doctor and specialist whether in or out of the network and deductibles would also be elimated . US BB medical are spitting fire as is Insurance groups ,do I need to say why ? well yes some might still think the US is run in a philanthropic manner —Profit -money $Billions – it will be interesting to see how far it gets and whether the Colorado residents vote it in ,there again they voted in Bernie Sanders so there is a chance . I look forward to watching massive funds being pumped into media advertising telling the people how its too dear when US medical costs are enormous even priced down to napkins and face masks etc etc.
It's also critical not to allow yourself to be intimidated by the medical system. Speak up and advocate for your own well-being. If patients sense that something is wrong, they should tell—or ask—their health-care providers. Although it's important to trust your doctor or nurse, it's also important to listen to your body ... and use common sense. Also advisable: Have a family member or friend accompany you on important visits to health-care providers.
A 1996 study by Daniel P. Kessler and Mark McClellan analyzing data on elderly Medicare beneficiaries treated for two serious cardiac diseases in 1984, 1987, and 1990 determined that "malpractice reforms that directly reduce provider liability pressure lead to reductions of 5 to 9 percent in medical expenditures without substantial effects on mortality or medical complications."
These critics assert that these rate increases are causing doctors to go out of business or move to states with more favorable tort systems. Not everyone agrees, though, that medical malpractice lawsuits are solely causing these rate increases. A 2003 report from the General Accounting Office found multiple reasons for these rate increases, with medical malpractice lawsuits being the primary driver. Despite noting multiple reasons for rate increases, the report goes on to state that the "GAO found that losses on medical malpractice claims-which make up the largest part of insurers’ costs-appear to be the primary driver of rate increases in the long run." More recent data has indicated that medical malpractice rates are generally no longer rising. In 2011, data pooled from the industry by the publication Medical Liability Monitor indicated that medical malpractice insurance rates had declined for four straight years. The decrease was seen in both states that had enacted tort reform and in states that had not, leading actuaries familiar with the data to suggest that patient safety and risk management campaigns had had a more significant effect.
They even let me know if they're going to be letting a student do my blood draw, and they sure as hell better let me know if there's any risk I'm entrusting my life to a hack. (I once found out a doc who tried to push a drug on me represented Lily or whoever was making tht drug...so I wonder if they should be required to provide all this info up front, whether asked or not. I have an effing right to know who is slicing me up.)
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.
Your access to the NCBI website at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov has been temporarily blocked due to a possible misuse/abuse situation involving your site. This is not an indication of a security issue such as a virus or attack. It could be something as simple as a run away script or learning how to better use E-utilities, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25497/, for more efficient work such that your work does not impact the ability of other researchers to also use our site. To restore access and understand how to better interact with our site to avoid this in the future, please have your system administrator contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
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 10th US Court of Appeals reviewed various similar informed consent cases and found that courts took different views on whether or not lying to a patient about a physician's background could be considered a breach of informed consent. Some courts held that doctors could be found liable only if they lied regarding the risks of the proposed treatment. In this case, the appellate court decided that the patient should have had a chance to make the argument, and sent the case back for retrial on that issue.
Of course, these questions get even more murky when talking about the legal system of a foreign country. Some nations may not recognize rights to sue by foreigners. Others may bog down in administrative red tape far thicker than anything found in an American court. Some estimate cases for malpractice brought in foreign nations could take 20 years or more to resolve. Worse yet, some nations may try to transfer jurisdiction back to the United States and the US may refuse to accept it, creating a legal back and forth leaving the parties in limbo.
When contributory negligence first appeared in the repertoire of personal injury lawyers, the standards of proof needed to succeed were quite high and very severe. Originally, under the doctrine of contributory negligence if it were shown that the plaintiff contributed in any way to his injuries, he was barred from any recovery. This has been modified over time to permit the plaintiff to recover even if he contributed to his injuries, as long as his fault is under 50 percent. In these cases, recovery is relative to fault. For instance, if a jury finds a party’s injuries worth $100,000 and holds that the party was 25 percent at fault, the party’s recovery would be $75,000. On the other hand, if the jury found the party 60 percent at fault, the party would be barred from any recovery.
Firstly , WebMD won't help at all (hasn't really helped anyone). Secondly here's the catch: Every doctor lies slightly. Most doctors don't prescribe spot-on medications , just ones that'll do the job and which pay them better. But don't think your doc is a golden-eyed business tycoon. They do their jobs very well. But to know if he/she is lying much out of range , consult a more experienced doctors or someone whose practice years exceed your doc. If your suspicion is right , you can even sue the doctor if you want lol. Just kidding. Go with personal opinions and choose one who has been actually effective for a larger no of people ( and I don't mean those paid smiley faces on billboards and light parties ).