Lets make it psychiatric: A psychiatrist recommends lamotrigine and warns of the risk of fatal skin rash. The patient asks the psychiatrist whether any of her patients has suicided. She lies and says no. The patient sloughs her skin, almost dies, discovers the lie and sues. She says if she had know the doctor has lost a patient to suicide she would have found another psychiatrist.
A physician that delivers substandard care subjects him or herself to a formal compliant. Misdiagnosis, careless treatment that causes you harm, or an unusual delay in treatment are complaint-worthy medical errors. Prescribing issues, such as under- or overprescribing medication or giving you the wrong medication, are also grounds for a formal complaint. Working under the influence of drugs or alcohol; sexual misconduct; practicing without a license; and altering records are a few other examples of proper types of complaints.
In view of Daubert and Kuhmo, the pre trial preparation of expert witnesses is critical. A problem with Daubert is that the presiding judge may admit testimony which derives from highly contested data. The judge may expand the limits contained in the "school of thought" precedent. Papers that are self-published may be admiited as the basis for expert testimony. Non-peer reviewed journals may also be admitted in similar fashion. The only criterion is the opinion of a single judge who, in all likelihood, has no relevant scientific or medical training.
Medical malpractice claims don't only cover errors in diagnosis and treatment. Once you've established a doctor-patient relationship, the doctor owes you a duty of care and treatment with the degree of skill, care, and diligence as possessed by, or expected of, a reasonably competent physician under the same or similar circumstances. Part of that duty of care is to be forthcoming with your diagnosis, treatment options and prognosis, as reasonably competent physicians would not lie to their patients.