free
hit counter
Medical Malpractice Cases | Medical Malpractice In Texas

Experience: All attorneys are not created equal. Many attorneys today work as general practice attorneys, meaning they handle all types of cases from criminal matters to civil suits. However, if you have experienced a case of medical negligence, it is important to have an attorney who specializes in medical malpractice. You do not want a lawyer whose first trial is going to be this case. Even attorneys who specialize in civil matters rarely go to court, as many of their cases settle without a trial. At The O’Keefe Firm, Stephen O’Keefe has had years of actual trial experience specializing in medical malpractice cases. Although your case may be resolved without stepping into the courtroom, you can be assured that Mr. O’Keefe has the trial experience necessary to fight for your rights in front of a jury.

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.

Asking about action against licensure and malpractice history - in Mass, this is public information if you look it up on state web site. Even if it is not public info, it is still a relevant question. I'd MUCH rather have a doc explain briefly (without violating his/her own or other patients' privacy) what went wrong and how it has been corrected, than to have an MD who lies.
Expert witnesses must be qualified by the Court, based on the prospective experts qualifications and the standards set from legal precedent. To be qualified as an expert in a medical malpractice case, a person must have a sufficient knowledge, education, training, or experience regarding the specific issue before the court to qualify the expert to give a reliable opinion on a relevant issue.[14] The qualifications of the expert are not the deciding factors as to whether the individual will be qualified, although they are certainly important considerations. Expert testimony is not qualified "just because somebody with a diploma says it is so" (United States v. Ingham, 42 M.J. 218, 226 [A.C.M.R. 1995]). In addition to appropriate qualifications of the expert, the proposed testimony must meet certain criteria for reliability. In the United States, two models for evaluating the proposed testimony are used:
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.
Medical malpractice is not dependent on a poor result, and a poor result does not always constitute negligence. The practice of medicine is an inexact art, and there are no guarantees that any course of treatment. But doctors do make mistakes, and some of those mistakes rise to the level of medical malpractice. So what, exactly, constitutes negligent treatment by a physician?
Medical malpractice court cases have been filed against specialists, and if your specialist caused you injury due to negligent care, you may be able to file a claim, too. Medical specialists are held to a higher standard than general practitioners because of their high skill level. Therefore, when a specialist breaches the acceptable standard of care and causes you harm, you can hold him or her accountable through a physician malpractice claim.
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.
Bringing a medical malpractice claim is not a thing to be taken lightly. Malpractice lawsuits are expensive, time consuming, and can open you up to public inspection. And, unlike most other types of personal injury claims, case trends show a tendency toward favoring doctors and other care providers, not injured plaintiffs. Settlement, too, is far more difficult in a malpractice case due to a doctor’s ability to refuse to settle, regardless of whether his or her insurance company wants to pay. Simply put, even the most winnable malpractice case is still an uphill battle with little or no guarantee of success. Should you sue your doctor for malpractice? Perhaps, but consider what follows before you do.
Medical malpractice is professional negligence by act or omission by a health care provider in which the treatment provided falls below the accepted standard of practice in the medical community and causes injury or death to the patient, with most cases involving medical error.[1] Claims of medical malpractice, when pursued in US courts, are processed as civil torts. Sometimes an act of medical malpractice will also constitute a criminal act, as in the case of the death of Michael Jackson.

Many states limit the amount a plaintiff can recover in a medical malpractice lawsuit. For example, subjective damages like “pain and suffering” might be capped at $250,000. In a state with that kind of cap, you wouldn’t be able to recover more than $250,000 plus any medical expenses, lost wages and other “concrete” damages caused by the malpractice.


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.
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.
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.
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.
Calitz explains that to bring a successful medical malpractice claim, you need to prove that the treatment you received deviated from a particular “standard of care”, and that it was the deviation (which can be an act or omission) from this standard that resulted in harm. The “standard of care” is defined as what a reasonably prudent medical provider would or would not have done under the same or similar circumstances.
In the doctrine of joint and several liability among tortfeasors, when there are multiple tortfeasors (“guilty” parties), all parties are equally liable for the damages caused to the injured party. This doctrine is quite harsh. For example, if the driver of a truck hits a pedestrian at night and the jury holds that the city is 15 percent responsible because it did not properly maintain the lighting at that portion of the road and the truck driver, who is 85 percent at fault, is uninsured, unemployed, and without assets, the city can be made to pay 100 percent of the damages. Under the doctrine of contribution, one tortfeasor may sue a fellow tortfeasor to recover any damages paid in excess of the proportion of fault. In most comparative fault states liability is the proportionate responsibility of each party.

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.
Medical doctors must go through an enormous amount of schooling and training before they are allowed to be physicians and practice medicine. But even so, they are still human – and sometimes things go wrong. When this happens, it is called “medical malpractice”. Medical malpractice occurs when a patient is harmed by a doctor (or medical paraprofessional) who fails to competently perform their duties. The rules about medical malpractice and what must be done to sue on those grounds are varied and, in some cases, very specific. From knowing when you must bring your lawsuit to knowing whether you must notify the doctor ahead of time and how to do it, the team of legal professionals at the Sodhi Law Group will guide you through the process. Here is a brief overview of types of malpractice followed by what requirements must be met for something to constitute medical malpractice.
Back in 1984, the extrapolated statistics from relatively few records in only several states of the United States estimated that between 44,000-98,000 people annually die in hospitals because of medical errors.[3] Much work has been done since then, including work by the author of that study who moved on from those low estimates back in the 1990s. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently says that 75,000 patients die annually, in hospitals alone, from infections alone - just one cause of harm in just one kind of care setting.[4] From all causes there have been numerous other studies, including "A New, Evidence-based Estimate of Patient Harms Associated with Hospital Care" by John T. James, PhD[5] that estimates 400,000 unnecessary deaths annually in hospitals alone. Using these numbers, medical malpractice is the third leading cause of death in the United States, only behind heart disease and cancer. Less than one quarter of care takes place in hospitals. Across all care settings the numbers are higher.
Medical professionals are held to a higher standard of competence than nonprofessionals. They should have a great deal of knowledge regarding various medical conditions and treatment protocols, and therefore are responsible for providing a high standard of care. Standard of care is defined as what a “reasonable” medical practitioner would have done under similar circumstances. In other words, medical professionals are responsible for using a certain level of knowledge, training, and experience. Medical professionals received extensive training in their field, and can therefore be held to a higher standard than a well-meaning passerby at the scene of an emergency (Bal 2009).
In the United States, there are many jurisdictional issues that could bar bringing a claim in an American court. Litigants would have to establish that the doctor had sufficient contacts with the United States for it to exert jurisdiction over him or her. Even if the court does find that it can take jurisdiction over the case, it has to determine which nation and state’s laws would apply.

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?
On several occasions the NHS has screwed up and had to cancel an appointment both with GP and consultant. On each occasion, an alternative appointment has been made for within a week after having to wait maybe months to get one in the first place. Apparently these appointments are reserved in case private patients need them which begs the question how many appointments are wasted by the NHS?
An award for pain and suffering is not obtainable unless your injuries reach at least 15% of a most extreme case.  There is, however, no set way of measuring what 15% of a most extreme case looks like so every injured person must be individually assessed by the Judge and a percentage decided.  The maximum award for pain and suffering is about $612,500.00 and is indexed each year to keep pace with inflation.

My husband has severe arthritis, causing full spinal fusion with inability to flex. His rheumatologist suggested he stop working in 2009 and file for disability, but he continued until 2011 when pain became unbearable. He applied for SSDI, providing a decade of medical records. Social Security then sent him to "their doctor", upon whose report they denied his claim. His report stated that my husband could bend, crawl, and get on his hands and knees... All of which is physically impossible for him.
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.

In the vast majority of cases, the Doctor who takes on your care will do so in a highly professional manner, but there may be occasions when their standards fall short of acceptable. If it can be shown your Doctor failed in their duty of care, in a manner tantamount to negligence, and that you suffered some form of loss, damage, or pain as a result, you may have cause to pursue a claim for medical negligence.


There are a number of different ways that improper delay in the provision of medical care could result in harm to a patient -- the delay may have made your condition worse, it may have negated the possibility that certain treatment could be administered, it could have blunted the effectiveness of a certain treatment method, or it could have unnecessarily prolonged or intensified your pain and discomfort.

Bringing a medical malpractice claim is not a thing to be taken lightly. Malpractice lawsuits are expensive, time consuming, and can open you up to public inspection. And, unlike most other types of personal injury claims, case trends show a tendency toward favoring doctors and other care providers, not injured plaintiffs. Settlement, too, is far more difficult in a malpractice case due to a doctor’s ability to refuse to settle, regardless of whether his or her insurance company wants to pay. Simply put, even the most winnable malpractice case is still an uphill battle with little or no guarantee of success. Should you sue your doctor for malpractice? Perhaps, but consider what follows before you do.


Once a patient begins a clinical negligence / medical malpractice claim for compensation it is no longer possible to pursue a complaint under the NHS complaints procedure.  Using the NHS complaints procedure does not stop you from later pursuing a clinical negligence / medical malpractice compensation claim and in some instances it is advisable to make a complaint under the NHS procedure before commencing a clinical negligence / medical malpractice claim.

Currently, most states have legal precedents that establish an informed consent standard. For instance, in Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal.3d 229, 104 Cal. Rptr. 505, 502 P.2d 1 (1972), the California Supreme Court first introduced the premise as “a duty of reasonable disclosure of the available choices with respect to proposed therapy and of the dangers inherently and potentially involved in each.” The Court further defined the physician’s duty in Truman v. Thomas, 27 Cal.3d 285, 611 P.2d 902 (1980), by stating that doctors must also inform patients of all material risks a reasonable person would want to know if deciding not to undergo a treatment or procedure. In other words, if certain information would be relevant to a patient’s understanding of and course of action in regards to a current condition, treatment or procedure, the doctor must share that data with the patient—to not do so would be considered lying as well as illegal.
×