free
hit counter
Medical Malpractice Insurance Usa | Medical Malpractice Claims

It is very common for an injured person to consult a lawyer saying ‘if Dr Smith had told me I would end up like this I would never have agreed to the procedure’.  While the saying ‘hindsight is always 20/20’ is often appropriate, there are situations where an injured person could and should sue their doctor or other professional for failing to warn them of significant risks of a procedure.
It is possible that there are issues lurking here of insurance bias, racism, or anything else we can imagine. But even if that were true, none of those factors will matter. The physician's stated reason for failing to affirmatively cause that drug to be furnished to you is conclusive and, once he realized that, and absolutely once he stated that, there was no alternative course of conduct other than his refusal.
During discovery both sides have an opportunity to force the other side to produce documents and other relevant materials such as medical records, tax returns, social security records, etc. They also have the opportunity to interview relevant witnesses under oath in a process known as a deposition. Prior to your deposition, we will work closely with you to ensure that you make the most effective presentation possible.
Seek out an appropriate specialist who can treat your specific injury.  Give the doctor your full medical history, including the circumstances surrounding the recent medical error.  Remember that medical records are the most important factors when determining a doctor’s error.  Make sure you give the new doctor enough correct and thorough information to ensure that the charts accurately record your state of health following the medical error.  To make sure your doctor fully understands your present condition and that these facts are properly recorded, be sure to share the “complete picture” by explaining what your health was like before, during, and after the accident, as well as your current condition.  Make sure your new doctor has access to any medical records that may impact his/her diagnosis and plan for treatment.
If someone you are close to has been seriously injured or worse, you are naturally devastated not only by what has happened, but by the effect that the injury or loss has had on you and your family. At a time when you're vulnerable, traumatized and emotionally exhausted, you need a team that will support you through the often complex process that lies ahead.
Note, however, that harm can include the progression of an injury or condition. For instance, if test results that reveal cancer are communicated too late and the patient has to then undergo intensive treatment because of the advanced stage of illness, the patient may be able to show that unnecessary harm was caused by the negligent delay in reporting the test results

Medical malpractice lawsuits typically have a short statute of limitations. This means that you don’t have much time after your injury to start the lawsuit. If you miss the deadline, your case will be thrown out regardless of the facts. Most states have a statute of limitations of three years or less. Some states extend the deadline if you had no way of knowing you were injured for months or years after a negligent medical procedure, however.

If you signed an indemnity or disclaimer during admission to hospital or for a particular procedure, you may have waived your right to hold the medical practitioner, hospital or hospital staff liable. However, the law in this regard is very complex and you may still be able to claim in certain circumstances even if you did sign an indemnity or disclaimer.

During discovery both sides have an opportunity to force the other side to produce documents and other relevant materials such as medical records, tax returns, social security records, etc. They also have the opportunity to interview relevant witnesses under oath in a process known as a deposition. Prior to your deposition, we will work closely with you to ensure that you make the most effective presentation possible.
Many medical procedures are inherently risky and even under the most expert care can have bad outcomes. In these cases, doctors are obliged to explain the possible risks of a procedure to you before the procedure, and you must give your informed consent. Doctors need to have efficient and accurate record-keeping processes in order to defend themselves from malpractice litigation. Absent or poor record keeping is classified as professional negligence.

Now I find myself with a new doctor that is scared of the DEA – they have prosecuted tons of doctors at this point and this new doctor wants to do nothing but cover her butt. So she takes_me_off_the_meds_I’ve_been _stable_on_for_9_years ….. and switches me to 2x long-acting (12 hrs – yeah try 8..) “crush-resistant” (aka – take it 1.5 hrs before you need relief or your previous dose wears off – whatever comes first) pills with some reasonable break thru meds…


Note, however, that harm can include the progression of an injury or condition. For instance, if test results that reveal cancer are communicated too late and the patient has to then undergo intensive treatment because of the advanced stage of illness, the patient may be able to show that unnecessary harm was caused by the negligent delay in reporting the test results

The South Dakota surgeon had been called to vouch for the expertise of one of his partners whose patient had suffered a stroke and permanent disability after an operation. The problem was Aanning had, in his own mind, questioned his colleague’s skill. His partner’s patients had suffered injuries related to his procedures. But Aanning understood why his partner’s attorney had called him as a witness: Doctors don’t squeal on doctors.
The complaint should indicate the patient’s name, the names of the parties responsible, a description of how the injury happened, the harm that was caused, and the amount of money that the patient expects in compensation. The patient should file the complaint at the office of the clerk of the local (i.e. county) branch of the state court, usually called "[state name] Superior Court, County of [county name]." You should also be sure to comply with any special procedural rules (as discussed in item 7, above).
Both Lucie and Bez throw into highlight this privatisation of the English health service where the Nation is talked into –“its too dear ” privatise it , this angers me I dont mind paying taxes for it . In Scotland a very different attitude is taken some heath matters are devolved and according to the latest news in an effort to stave off the Scots from leaving the UK our new PM might be willing to devolve much more and even welfare ( but it is a two edged sword ” ) financially wise .
If the prosecution and defense cannot agree on a settlement, the case will proceed to trial. Medical malpractice trials are almost always trials by jury. If a case does proceed to trial, and the losing party is unwilling to accept the jury’s verdict, they can appeal to a higher court. In some jurisdictions, they can also appeal the amount of a judgement in the same court.
3. Evidence - keep track of any evidence which could be relevant to your case. Keep detailed records of your appointments with your GP, together with records of any telephone consultations and referral appointments. Your solicitor will arrange to obtain and copy of your medical notes and x-rays. You will have to pass this information on to your lawyer and it will be a lot easier if you have it at hand. Keep any prescriptions, receipts from further treatments, notes of further treatment and a diary detailing the progression of your health issues. For example, if you fell ill with appendicitis and your GP failed to diagnose it, you should keep a note of the progression of your condition, if you are well enough to do so. All of this is not vital, but very helpful.  

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]
Doctors must abide by what is called “the duty of informed consent”. This means that a doctor is obligated by law and by professional ethics to warn patients of all known risks of a procedure or course of treatment. If a patient who had been properly informed of risks and potential side-effects would have elected not to proceed, the doctor MAY be liable for medical malpractice. Similarly, if the patient is injured by the procedure – or during the course of treatment – in a way that the doctor should have warned could happen but didn’t, the doctor may be liable for medical malpractice.

The 1960's were a critical moment in the history of medical malpractice litigation in the US. The frequency of suits saw an enormous uptick. Contributing factors included new, complex treatments which allowed for more error or injury; what the AMA described as a "changing legal landscape that removed barriers to lawsuits and changed liability rules"; and finally changes in satisfaction with health care. This caused medical professionals to lobby for federal intervention in the realm of medical tort litigation. Legislators attempt to take an evenhanded approach that would excessively favor neither plaintiff nor defendant. As every state is afforded the right to legislate medical malpractice laws independently without federal oversight, the approach differs from state to state. There are two competing schools of thought that weigh into the manner of legislation regarding medical malpractice. The American Medical Association writes “Physicians and physician organizations have tended to view most medical malpractice claims as spurious and injurious to the medical system, whereas patient advocates view the malpractice system as both a deterrent against the practice of dangerous medicine and an avenue for much-deserved compensation for injured patients.”

The doctor was negligent. Just because you are unhappy with your treatment or results does not mean the doctor is liable for medical malpractice. The doctor must have been negligent in connection with your diagnosis or treatment. To sue for malpractice, you must be able to show that the doctor caused you harm in a way that a competent doctor, under the same circumstances, would not have. The doctor's care is not required to be the best possible, but simply "reasonably skillful and careful." Whether the doctor was reasonably skillful and careful is often at the heart of a medical malpractice claim. Almost all states require that the patient present a medical expert to discuss the appropriate medical standard of care and show how the defendant deviated from that standard.


In most cases, a hospital is liable in the legal sense only if an employee’s negligence or incompetence results in injury to a patient. A medical malpractice lawsuit may be the proper course of action if a nurse, an aide, a technician, or any other hospital employee injures a patient by negligently performing or failing to perform a job-related task.
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."[50]
These critics assert that these rate increases are causing doctors to go out of business or move to states with more favorable tort systems.[30] Not everyone agrees, though, that medical malpractice lawsuits are solely causing these rate increases.[31] A 2003 report from the General Accounting Office found multiple reasons for these rate increases, with medical malpractice lawsuits being the primary driver.[32] 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.[33]
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.
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.
Holding Negligent Healthcare Providers Accountable Our team of experienced, litigating attorneys have spent thousands of hours in actual courtrooms fighting for victims of medical malpractice in Florida. Our firm has the resources necessary to hire the appropriate expert witnesses, investigators, … Continue reading Florida Medical Malpractice Attorneys
If you believe you have lost someone due to the actions or inactions of a doctor or other medical professional, you should contact an attorney immediately. If the attorney determines that the doctor's actions were so inappropriate that criminal charges may be appropriate, he or she can guide you through the process of contacting law enforcement and filing a police report. However, in most instances the attorney will simply assist you in making a monetary recovery to provide for those your loved one has left behind.
The injury resulted in significant damages - Medical malpractice lawsuits are extremely expensive to litigate, frequently requiring testimony of numerous medical experts and countless hours of deposition testimony. For a case to be viable, the patient must show that significant damages resulted from an injury received due to the medical negligence. If the damages are small, the cost of pursuing the case might be greater than the eventual recovery. To pursue a medical malpractice claim, the patient must show that the injury resulted in disability, loss of income, unusual pain, suffering and hardship, or significant past and future medical bills.
Delayed diagnosis of cancer is one of the most common types of delayed diagnosis cases. Unfortunately, this occurs a lot more than it should. When considering suing their doctor for delayed diagnosis of cancer, plaintiffs must consider the fact that they already had cancer when the negligence occurred. It is this very pre-existing cancer which gives rise to the possibility of a case – the cancer was there to be diagnosed, and that opportunity was lost

Because many malpractice cases involve patients that were already sick or injured, there is often a question of whether what the doctor did – the treatment of the preexisting condition – actually caused the harm. If a patient dies of pancreatic cancer after seeking medical treatment, it might be difficult to prove that the doctor caused the patient’s death and not the cancer. The patient must show that it is “more likely than not“ that the doctor’s incompetence directly caused the injury. This often requires that a patient have a medical expert testify that the doctor’s negligence caused the injury.


A new, relatively untested issue involving medical professionals was introduced with the passing of the Consumer Protection Act in 2008. In the context of health care, the term “service” means work performed by a person for the direct or indirect benefit of another, including the provision of medical advice by a health professional. The Act thus widens the range of events for which you can claim compensation. It also enables you to seek compensation from manufacturers of medical products and devices in the event of their malfunction.
Regardless of how much you want to be the one selected to do the procedure, that's the patient's choice not yours. I think it's smart to look into a physician's background before selecting them to do surgery. I would want to know how much experience you have or if there had been malpractice issues. Patients are the ones paying and taking the risks. They get to decide how much risk they're willing to take -not the physician. If you refuse to answer the questions, which I do believe is your right, then it lets the patient decide what to do next - either get on the medical board website and see if anything has been reported, talk to more people, find another physician who doesn't mind answering the questions, etc.
The Lexington, Kentucky Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center was one of the first to introduce such a program. Non-economic benefits to medical professionals included the promotion of ethical, honest behavior, and benefits to patients and their loved ones included a truthful account of what occurred, an apology, and potentially an offer of compensation. The VA also benefited financially – it became the VA hospital with the lowest malpractice payouts. Also, their average length of cases decreased from 2-4 years to 2-4 months.
A medical malpractice action must be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrues. However, if, at the time the injury occurs, the claimant is a minor or of unsound mind, the one-year statutes are tolled until the disability is removed (the minor reaches 18) Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.16. However, with the passage of time it can be more difficult to pursue the case as memories can fade or witnesses may have moved away. We recommend contacting our office right away for a free consultation to make sure you understand all of your rights and to have all of your questions answered.

* Fee-for-service model. Taking a malpractice case to court could cost over R200 000 due to the high fees advocates and attorneys charge. A decision on costs will be made by the court and will depend on the merits of the case. However, even if the case is successful, the awarded compensation might be less than the legal costs, and if the case is unsuccessful, you might have to pay your legal fees, as well as the those of your doctor.


After meeting the notice requirements and other prerequisites, depending upon the jurisdiction an injured patient may be able to file a lawsuit against the doctor. In order to prove the doctor negligent and that he or she committed malpractice, the accident victim must first be able to show that the doctor breached the duty of care owed to the patient.
There are lots of laws applicable to punish physicians who make affirmative bad judgments as to medical care and treatment. But there is no law that affirmatively compels a physician to prescribe or provide medication that the physician does not believe is in the patient's best interests. This doctor told you that he lacks the knowledge to conclude that the drug you wanted was correct for a patient in your circumstances. Given that fact, he had no legal choice but to decline to provide that drug.
In order to succeed with a medical malpractice claim you must prove that your doctor or other health care provider’s treatment of you was “negligent”, which in medical malpractice cases is defined as treatment that falls below the “standard of care” of practice for a reasonable practitioner in a particular area of medicine. Just proving you had a bad result from a medical treatment or procedure is not sufficient; some bad results can occur even when your doctor was not negligent. Sometimes there are “known risks” that are unavoidable with certain surgeries, treatments or medication. Further, even proving a departure from the standard of care is not enough! You must then prove that the mistake or error “proximately caused” the injury or damage to you. For example, your doctor may have departed from a reasonable standard of care in not diagnosing properly your fractured wrist. Maybe he completely overlooked the fracture. But what if he had properly diagnosed it? Would your wrist be any better now? If a proper diagnosis would not have lead to a better result, then there is no “causation” between your doctor’s negligence and your injury. In other words, “no harm, no foul”. A good medical malpractice lawyer knows how to analyze carefully the “elements” (what you have to prove) of a medical malpractice case. He or she also knows how to present these elements to a jury. The Syracuse medical malpractice lawyers of Michaels & Smolak has the skill, experience and expertise to maximize your chances of prevailing. So contact us for a free consultation.
The more common (and some believe more reliable) approach used by all federal courts and most state courts is the 'gatekeeper' model, which is a test formulated from the US Supreme Court cases Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (509 U.S. 579 [1993]), General Electric Co. v. Joiner (522 U.S. 136 [1997]), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (526 U.S. 137 [1999]). Before the trial, a Daubert hearing[15] will take place before the judge (without the jury). The trial court judge must consider evidence presented to determine whether an expert's "testimony rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand." (Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597). The Daubert hearing considers 4 questions about the testimony the prospective expert proposes:
Remember that a complaint does not initiate a law suit.  If you wish to take legal action against your doctor, you should consult with a medical malpractice attorney who can evaluate your situation and provide legal advice.  If you feel that your doctor’s actions rose to the level of criminal behavior, contact the district attorney in the jurisdiction where your physician practices. 
We handle a wide range of Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), including representing medical malpractice victims at naval hospitals or medical centers. We have represented service members and their families in a wide range of cases at Navy hospitals across the country. We handle many types of medical malpractice at Navy hospitals, including Brain and spinal injury cases, wrongful death, and birth injuries.
The low point for the Australian medical insurance industry was in 1999 and 2000, with exponential increases in medical insurance premiums and the collapse of the HIH Insurance Group in March 2001. Since then, Australia has introduced a series of reforms, including the capping of compensation awards and dispute-resolution procedures that stipulate mediation or arbitration as the first step.
This is a crucial determination. Just because medical negligence occurred at a hospital, it doesn't necessarily follow that the facility itself can be held responsible. If your case is based on sub-standard care provided by an individual doctor, and that doctor is an independent contractor (and not an employee of the hospital), you need to pursue action against the doctor him/herself. In many cases, you can't sue a hospital for a doctor's treatment error, unless the doctor is an employee of the hospital (most are not), or when the doctor's incompetence should have been obvious to the hospital.
The fundamental elements of litigated medical malpractice are, above all, duty and negligence. Historic efforts define these two elements were muddled - fourteenth-century law under Henry V held that the physician owed a duty of care to the patient because medicine was a “common calling” (a profession), and required physicians to exercise care and prudence. Those in other professions who did not practice a "common calling” were liable only if an express promise had been made to achieve or avoid a certain result. In the absence of such a promise, the professional could not be held liable. Physicians, then, were held to a separate standard because of the nature of their profession. Modern notions of negligence are parallel to what history called the “carelessness” of early physicians. The notion of duty was legally elucidated in British common law. Carelessness and neglect were not in and of themselves causes of action lest the practitioner by nature of their profession had a duty to the person to whom they rendered care. The law determined that medical professionals were legally bound by a duty of care to their patients. Negligence was thereby grounds for legal action. The establishment of duty and negligence laid the foundation for Anglo-American legislation of medical malpractice.
The first non-VA hospital to adopt such a program was the University of Michigan’s (U of M’s) health care system, which introduced the Michigan Model in 2001. Payments to wronged patients are made on behalf of the institution itself, so they are not reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank (such a report would affect a physician’s reputation). In this way, U of M protects its physicians and encourages them to own up to any mistakes. For more information on the Michigan Model for responding to medical errors, and how it has benefited both patients and medical professionals, click here.
Bring a recorder in next time. Honestly, it's something I will do if I ever speak with a Doctor again .I've known one that completely lied on my notes and I was shocked. If I didn't agree with him he replied don't forget "I have your notes" this Doctor abused his power and I was emotionally broken. Doctors and therapist that abuse need OUT of the health fields and please remember they are not always right..My heart goes out to anyone who has ever been taken advantage of or harmed by any Doctor or therapist. They have rules that by law they must follow.
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.
×