free
hit counter
Can You Sue Your Doctor | Medical Malpractice Cases Won

No matter the value of your estate, it is essential that you plan for what will happen to your assets after your death. A living trust, when done correctly, can assure a faster distribution of your assets, avoid unnecessary taxes and keep your wishes private as well. But, it must be done right. Here are five things you must do before writing a living trust.


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]
The philosophy of our law firm regarding damages is simple: obtain the maximum monetary recovery possible for each client. We accomplish this by relying on our decades of experience to diligently prepare our cases for trial and aggressively advocate for our clients. Our financial resources, technological tools and access to outstanding experts in various fields allow us to provide top-notch representation to our clients.
In order to prove medical negligence, one must show that their doctor deviated from the accepted level of medical care that could have been reasonably expected from a physician. Deviations that may support a medical malpractice claim include: surgical errors; medication errors; infections from hospitals; delayed diagnosis of cancer; cerebral palsy; paralysis; pulmonary embolus; spinal cord injury; strokes, heart attacks; brain injury; breast cancer; birth injury; tools, sponges, towels or objects left behind in your body after surgery; surgery on the wrong site; treatment without your informed consent; being given the wrong medication or the wrong dose; being treated with unsterile equipment; or a misdiagnosis or failure to diagnose a serious condition.

“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.
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.

But, anon, a successful suit doesn't remove a bad doc from practice. Only a licensure action can guarantee that. Suing someone out of a need to punish them may accomplish little. The real purpose of civil suits is to make the plaintiff whole. I suspect even "punitive" damages, if they're ever awarded in malpractice suits, would be covered by insurance.
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.

In order to prove medical negligence, one must show that their doctor deviated from the accepted level of medical care that could have been reasonably expected from a physician. Deviations that may support a medical malpractice claim include: surgical errors; medication errors; infections from hospitals; delayed diagnosis of cancer; cerebral palsy; paralysis; pulmonary embolus; spinal cord injury; strokes, heart attacks; brain injury; breast cancer; birth injury; tools, sponges, towels or objects left behind in your body after surgery; surgery on the wrong site; treatment without your informed consent; being given the wrong medication or the wrong dose; being treated with unsterile equipment; or a misdiagnosis or failure to diagnose a serious condition.


If the doctor's mistake was one that a reasonable doctor would make, he has not acted negligently and has not committed medical malpractice. Often when a doctor fails to diagnose a medical problem, he may mistake the problem for something else and attempt to treat that. Likewise, if the medical problem is extremely rare, unknown, or difficult to identify, than a proper diagnose may not be possible.

Unfortunately, just because one of these things occurs does not mean you have a claim. Medicine is not an exact science, and the law does not obligate doctors to be error-free 100 percent of the time. If doctor error occurs but there is no breach of a standard of care, you may not have a strong claim. If however, doctor error occurs and there is a breach of a standard of care, then malpractice may have occurred.
In Australia you don’t have to register with a doctor, you can just ring any clinic and make an appointment, only sometimes if you’re ringing after midday you might not be able to get an appointment on the same day, and if you can’t you can just go to a walk-in clinic and be seen by a doctor within an hour, a doctor! not a damn nurse! Not to mention most doctors surgeries are open saturday and sundays too, here seems they are all closed on the weekend.

If we accept your claim on a Conditional Fee Agreement, we will always aim to beat a success fee offer by another firm. You should be aware that there may be deductions from your damages in relation to and after-the-event (ATE) insurance policy, this protects you from any adverse costs. Here at Been Let Down, we are highly experienced Solicitors who will maximise the damages you are entitled to, which gives Been Let Down a competitive edge over other Solicitors offering the same services.


As the field of medicine has advanced in capability and courage, so have the scope of possible mishaps, and throughout the course of medical malpractice history, there have been some veritably unbelievable cases. Cerebral palsy resulting from mistakes in the birthing process has been seen a number of times, and almost invariably results in enormous payouts. One mother was awarded $74.5 million after her child was born with cerebral palsy and her physicians falsified records to cover up wrongdoing.
The ancient Romans also had a legal foundation for medical malpractice law. Their first written laws, on the XII Tables, included the concepts of delicts, iniuria, and damnum iniuria datum. Delicts were types of wrongful conduct that involved penalties. Inuria and damnum iniuria datum were two types of delict. Inuria referred to personal injuries, and damnum iniuria datum referred to injury of property, which could include slaves. Inuria only included injuries that were intentionally caused. A person could be compensated for pain of mind or body as well as monetary expenses resulting from the injury. Damnum iniuria datum also included harm caused by negligent actions, but only mandated compensation for economic losses caused by harm to property. For example, if someone’s slave required medical attention as the result of another person’s negligent actions, they could demand payment through damnum iniuria datum. Eventually, this law was expanded to apply to free men in addition to slaves (O’Connel and Carpenter 1983).  
An injury was caused by the negligence - For a medical malpractice claim to be valid, it is not sufficient that a health care professional simply violated the standard of care. The patient must also prove he or she sustained an injury that would not have occurred in the absence of negligence. An unfavorable outcome by itself is not malpractice. The patient must prove that the negligence caused the injury. If there is an injury without negligence or negligence that did not cause an injury, there is no case.
Why is it important to differentiate between malpractice and simply poor doctoring? Because in a successful malpractice case, the patient can recover money damages to compensate for injury, including emotional harm. Alternatives to a malpractice lawsuit include filing a human rights complaint, filing a complaint with the psychiatrist’s employer, filing an ethics charge against the psychiatrist, writing negative online reviews for the psychiatrist, or speaking with the psychiatrist directly. However, these alternatives will not provide recompense to the patient for any harm inflicted.
Your attorney can help you determine whether you were the victim of  medical malpractice. Attorneys conduct independent medical research with the assistance of physicians and nurses to determine whether medical negligence occurred. A poor medical outcome alone does not automatically mean medical malpractice was committed. In order to receive compensation, you must prove that the defendant failed to provide reasonable care. Please feel free to call usanytime for free a consultation to help you get your questions answered.
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:
While some medical errors are readily apparent, many times a serious hospital error is not immediately obvious. You may have a suspicion that you or your loved one has been harmed by a hospital’s substandard care. In most instances, you will need to have your medical records reviewed by independent medical experts to determine whether a preventable hospital error occurred.
You withheld information from the doctor or gave misleading information to the doctor which might have aided or hindered the doctor’s ability to diagnose the problem. For example, if you tell the doctor that you don’t smoke even though you do, than the doctor may not be able to properly diagnose that you have developed lung cancer or other respiratory illnesses.
In many jurisdictions, a medical malpractice lawsuit is initiated officially by the filing and service of a summons and complaint. The parties subsequently engage in discovery,"[2] a process through which documents such as medical records are exchanged, and depositions are taken by parties involved in the lawsuit. A deposition involves the taking of statements made under oath about the case. Certain conversations are not discoverable due to issues of privilege, a legal protection against discovery,[4] but most conversations between the parties and witnesses are discoverable.
P.S. Opioid tolerance and dependence are normal and expected physiological responses to continuous opioid therapy. Fixing a patient’s physical dependence on a opioid once there is no more need of it for pain relief is a simple matter of tapering down. Thousands of people who were lucky enough to survive cancer or other trauma do it every year, no dramas.
In order to have a malpractice claim, your medical professional must have acted negligently. This is to say that your doctor failed to treat you with a standard of care. A standard of care is the agreed upon method or methods employed by medical providers in the given geographic area for a condition or illness. This standard changes depending on a number of factors, including the age of the patient and the condition being treated.
In most "injury cases" - social security disability, workers' compensation, personal injury - you will be examined by a doctor from the "other side." Often the doctors involved have different opinions. The rules put forth by the Social Security Administration give more weight (consideration) to the opinion of a treating physician for this very reason - a treating physician should know their patient better than an IME doctor.
We certainly need to commit more money to the NHS for both medics and facilities. I think the existing facilities could probably absorb several thousand more doctors, nurses and other specialists if such people were available, but at the same time we need to start another major hospital building programme [as well as specialist units to take the pressure off general hospitals]. Additional resources for psychiatric conditions are also vital as failure there impacts on other medical services. It’s no good building hospitals until we have an adequate pipeline of professionals to staff them so training needs to be boosted. If all this was authorised now it would be at least seven years before we had the first new fully-staffed hospital. There is no time to waste while we argue over where any Brexit dividend will be used. We need a commitment now.
My wife answered that question as you would have all doctors answer it, with a YES. Now that same patient who accused her of being cold, and having no empathy for their unbearable pain, is being SUED for everything she’s got because they couldn’t take responsibility for their own misuse of ADDICTIVE drugs. There is no such thing as chronic pain control WITHOUT potential dependance/addiction, and despite the constant pleas of ignorance in courtrooms all over this country, every adult in this society KNOWS THAT.
At trial the jury found in favor of the doctor because even the plaintiff's expert couldn't say that the complications were the direct result of improperly performed surgery. Even properly done surgery of this type carried the risk of perforation, bleeding and infection. The plaintiff also alleged that the doctor failed to give her informed consent because he gave false information about his personal background. The trial court wouldn't allow the informed consent issue to be raised because in Wisconsin the law only required that physicians tell patients the material risks of proposed treatment. There was no affirmative duty to disclose professional background information even when asked.
The first step is a letter of demand, a letter sent by your lawyer to the doctor or health facility concerned, setting out your claim and the period in which the accused should meet it. Thereafter, getting a case to court can take up to four years. Accurate case data and hospital notes have to be gathered; records relating to the patient’s prior medical history, treatment at the hands of the suspected transgressor, and any subsequent treatment must be obtained. Then, lay witnesses must be found, expert witnesses briefed and court dates agreed on. In addition, both the patient’s medical condition and prevailing medical treatments have to be researched.
In the vast majority of cases, establishing the answer to this question requires testimony from an expert medical witness. The patient (usually through an attorney) consults a doctor who specializes in the relevant field, and the doctor offers an opinion as to the proper procedures to follow when deciding whether to terminate care in cases like the patient's -- and if the proper decision is to end care, the expert will also set out the appropriate way to go about ending the doctor-patient relationship under the circumstances.
Back surgery remains a highly controversial area of surgical medicine and the ambiguity of the outcomes supports why some surgeons are extremely conservative in identifying good surgical candidates. The first surgeon did not find you to be a good surgical candidate, the second one did. "proving" that surgeon #1 lied to you may assuage your outrage, but does nothing to further your case or your health and it's likely to fail in court. So my opinion, move on. Best of luck.
×