After a suit is filed, both parties gather information from the other. For example, the plaintiff’s attorney will request their client’s medical records from the defendant. There will then be interrogatory forms (a set of written questions to clarify facts) submitted by each attorney to the opposing party, and depositions (formal meetings in which an individual  –  such as the plaintiff, the defendant, or an expert for either party  –  is questioned under oath). A record of these depositions is taken for potential use in court. Usually, the people who attend the deposition include attorneys for both parties and the court reporter. In some cases, the plaintiff or defendant can also choose to attend to observe, but does not talk or ask questions. Sometimes, the defendant and their attorney will agree to settle the case prior to court  –  that is, the defendant pays the plaintiff a mutually agreed upon amount called a “settlement.”


The report by the Indiana Department of Health identified 21 surgeries on the wrong body parts and 4 wrong surgical procedures performed on patients in 2014. The problem is common enough that the federal Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations published a protocol for healthcare providers to follow that includes a “timeout process” to prevent wrong operations and wrong-site surgery. Unfortunately, a fifth of our hospitals have not adopted the protocol.
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.
Doctor Liability, Damages – In this category of cases the patient can prove that the doctor was negligent, and that negligence was the cause of the patient’s injury.  These are the situations most likely to end favorably for the injured party.  Attorneys are more likely to take cases they believe will be easy to prove.  When attorneys can easily prove physician liability, costs are lower and the client will receive more of the damage award.  In other words, less money will be deducted from the patient’s award.
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.
I confess to having booked an appointment for a blood test recently and when I put it on my computer/phone forgot to set an alert. The surgery also failed to send a text reminder. Both worked this morning. GP surgeries and out-patient departments often have notices about the large number of failed appointments. In an ideal world everyone would turn up for appointments on time but few of us are perfect.
dear carol i know its not much to offer in this situation but i can give you infromation that might help your son first of all have you consired he is having side effcets to the new medication make sure you geg name of it also i suggest you had to pandasnetwork. org it not what you think it talk about an autoimmune condtion that cause many syptoms like you say also if are heading to a solictor maybe talk your son into getting a chromosome test if possible because if they belive adhd is caused by improper chromosome numbers they should of least told you about it hang in there its such a shame what those pschyrtist do they like vlutrues they prey on weak till they dead,thats an offense to vlutures least the ARE HONEST hope info help

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.
As for the marital stress, how did it get to court? Let's say the couple asks the psychiatrist if she's been divorced. I say she must either say yes, or say I won't tell you. Her choice. It would not be OK for her to lie. At that point the couple can find someone else. No damages. No court. When you say "must be disclosed," do you mean the court would hold that the psychiatrist should volunteer the information? First you would need an expert to testify to that. Then there would have to be damages, and proximate cause. Seems like a real stretch.
Doctors' groups, patients, and insurance companies have criticized medical malpractice litigation as expensive, adversarial, unpredictable, and inefficient. They claim that the cost of medical malpractice litigation in the United States has steadily increased at almost 12 percent annually since 1975.[27] More recent research from the same source has found that tort costs as a percentage of GDP dropped between 2001 and 2009, and are now at their lowest level since 1984.[28] Jury Verdict Research, a database of plaintiff and defense verdicts, says awards in medical liability cases increased 43 percent in 1999, from $700,000 to $1,000,000. However, more recent research from the U.S. Department of Justice has found that median medical malpractice awards in states range from $109,000 to $195,000.[29]
Medical malpractice claims don’t settle easily out of court. Doctors are usually outraged at being sued. Some believe they can do no wrong. In any event, they don’t want to admit any wrongdoing, and to them, settling is just that, an admission that they did wrong. Therefore, more than with any other type of case, your lawyer must be prepared to try your case. Yet statistically, medical malpractice claims are among the most difficult claims to win at trial. Most of them are lost. Your best chance at settling, or if you can’t settle, winning at trial, is with an experienced medical malpractice trial attorney whose reputation might induce a favorable settlement or, that failing, whose trial skills and medical knowledge will tip the scales in your favor at trial. The medical malpractice team at Michaels & Smolak is skilled and experienced in such claims, so contact us for a free consultation now.

Medical negligence occurs when a doctor or other medical professional breaches the standard of care. In general, a standard of care is the accepted methods of treatment applied by other medical professionals in the area to patients with identical or similar conditions. A standard of care will vary depending on a number of factors, including geographic area, the age of the patient, and the medical condition.
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.

Prominent physicians Nathan Smith and R.E. Griffith of Yale and the University of Pennsylvania respectively held the belief that medical malpractice lawsuits were beneficial and necessary, serving as a tool of accountability in a profession that was poorly regulated. The American Medical Association (AMA) was founded in 1847 with the goal of promoting standardization of the profession, as well as elevating the standing of physicians in society. At the time, the vast majority of suits stemmed from orthopedic malpractice and deformations that resulted from botched amputations. As physicians sought to raise their own standards, higher patient expectations ensued. With the arrival of liability insurance for physicians, medical malpractice suits shot up in the States in the late 19th century.


The medical industry uniquely benefits from broad autonomy and self-regulation. Standardization of care and general oversight work to balance physician autonomy, and some may say they even erode that autonomy to an extent. Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) enforce patterns of practice to which providers must adhere. Emerging technologies throughout the 20th century paved the way for new treatment methods, but they also “raised patient expectations [while] multiplying the possibilities for mishaps.” In an examination of the interplay of autonomy and oversight, the Drexel Law Review wrote "Standardization and oversight serve to further reinforce patient expectations. By way of contrast, a disorganized profession typified by idiosyncratic practices discourages perceptions of consistent quality. Formal organization of the medical profession was intended, in part, to counter this characterization.”
It doesn’t matter that “addiction” can be either physical or psychologic and that there is no reliable way to determine when addiction occurs. Tick’s bill doesn’t define addiction. It also doesn’t matter that people can get addicted to pretty much anything … alcohol, illegal drugs, porn, gambling, even collecting Cabbage Patch Kids. Tick’s bill only cares about those evil doctors. Beware internet service providers, you could be next on the list if your subscribers get addicted to the internet.
Medical negligence occurs when a doctor or other medical professional breaches the standard of care. In general, a standard of care is the accepted methods of treatment applied by other medical professionals in the area to patients with identical or similar conditions. A standard of care will vary depending on a number of factors, including geographic area, the age of the patient, and the medical condition.
Many people don’t bring a meritorious lawsuit against their doctor because of fear concerning family and friends. Only you can decide for yourself whether bringing a lawsuit against your physician is the right thing for you to do. Only you know the pain and suffering that you have endured – nobody else. Only you know the extent of your lost wages, medical bills, and injury.
I thought my first encounter with my new psychiatrist was traumatic but after reading everyone's comments I don't feel like I was abused as badly as so many of you were. I am doing research because this doctor was so rude and unprofessional that I actually was traumatized when I left his office after our first session. After reading and doing some research I have found that unfortunately I can not sue him for medical malpractice but you can bet I am going to report him to every medical organization I can. I have already gone to the hospital and spoken to upper management and they have forced him to prescribe my medication in the correct quantity after he lied to me in session and told me he could only prescribe a 30 day quantity. How am I supposed to make it through the other 2 months before my next appointment with him if I only have a 30 day supply? Idiot. He was irritated with me because even though he had my chart (my regular doctor abruptly left her practice 8 days before my scheduled appointment with her) and I was shuffled to this clown and they sent all my records to him (or so they said). He kept asking ME which of the meds listed on my chart were my psych meds and got irritated when I told him I didn't know. That's when I started to get nervous. If he was a real doctor, how is it he couldn't pick out the psych meds from everything else on my list? He asked me why I was taking so many anti-depressants. I thought to myself--that's a stupid question-I am the patient, I didn't prescribe them so how would I be able to even begin to answer that question? He explained that giving anti-depressants to a bipolar was like giving them rocket fuel. Then he snickered and said that maybe I had pissed off my last doctor( I suppose as an explanation for why she was overmedicating me and according to his opinion after seeing me for all of 15 minutes that I was too manic) As he perused my chart he saw something he didn't like and he said, "Shit!" I thought ok, that wasn't very professional. As he proceeded to ask questions, when I answered them (or I should say tried to answer them) he would interrupt me when he felt he'd gotten the information he needed and he'd say, " ok, that's all I need to know". He cut me off mid-sentence repeatedly as if I was wasting his time and he wanted me to just shut up once he got what he wanted for his purposes. One of my conditions is bipolar and somehow the question of being highly sexual came up and he said, "Oh, so you were promiscuous." I have never had anyone use that kind of terminology to describe that particular symptom. I have read books, magazines, done on-line research about bipolar ever since my diagnosis and I have not encountered that wording to describe the condition. I was shocked to hear a doctor use that term. I felt like he had called me a whore. At least that's how I felt. He asked me about working with other doctors and I shared that I had one doctor who never shared or gave any feedback and he laughed and said, "Well, then you won't like me, because I don't give feedback either." I thought to myself, how is it funny that a psychiatrist doesn't give a patient any kind of feedback at all? How is he going to now how my meds are working or if they aren't, and how am I supposed to know the same thing if he never interacts with me?" The icing on the cake was when he abruptly stopped speaking in the middle of his instructions about my meds and said, "OK, time's up, our session is over." I was so surprised I really had no idea what to say. I sat there for a minute trying to collect myself and to see if he was serious and he just kept staring at me, so I said,"Um, well, if you think it's not important to give me instructions on my meds, then I guess I have to leave since you are telling me to go." I was floundering at this point because I honestly had no idea what I was going to do. They tell you to take your meds, take your meds, take your meds, because it is so important that you stay on your regime once your doctor gets you started, and so many people with bipolar stop once they feel better, but I knew how wild my life had been before I was finally diagnosed so I am totally dedicated to staying on medications and here was my doctor kicking me out of his office without my meds. I was totally freaked out. Then he said, "No, I'm going to finish giving you your instructions, but I wanted to make a point of it that you were late and that now you are cutting into my next patient's time. I had been on time but I did stop at the desk to write my co-pay which took all of maybe 2 or 3 minutes. He finished his instructions to me and as I was leaving he said, "Remember, if you want respect, you have to give respect." And then he instructed me to be early to my next visit. I suppose to be sure that I didn't spend 3 minutes writing out my co-pay. I was so freaked out, I felt like a criminal for almost three days because I believed I had been so bad. Thank goodness, I've had several good doctors over the years, and as I processed it more and more I started to get angry. Really, really angry. I won't even go into the run around I got from the sorry excuse they have for a patient liason who was absolutely no help. As a matter of fact, after dealing with her, I was even angrier. I was torn between pursuing the matter further or just letting it go because I knew I was going to run out of meds in 30 days and then what? But this week after seeing my talk therapist and being able to compare my reactions to hers, I realized that HE was the one who had been wildly inappropriate and that he had been unprofessional, rude, and actually, just downright mean. I have no idea why people like that are even allowed to practice medicine. Especially the kind of medicine where they can really mess someone up with medication and with inappropriate or cruel behavior. So I drove to the hospital, demanded to see anyone who was not that excuse for a patient liason, got a printed copy of my patient's rights (which I did not know existed had I not seen them posted on the wall at the front desk when I went in that day) They called and I got to speak to someone in risk management (so apparently the patient liason person lied to me when she said she did not report to anyone and refused to let me have the corporate address and said they only people above her were the doctors and they would not want to speak to me about my issue)
What she did NOT DO – WEAN THE DOSE OF FENTANYL PATCHES DOWN FIRST…. This was a COLD SWITCH – and being a “legitimate patient” I never assumed a doctor would ever – ever do this without some significant discussion, the audacity of a doctor to do this – knowing the impact, and knowing I have a job and a family (twins and 3 older children) and that ALL of the discussion with this doctor was centered around NOT causing a negative impact to work / family life – is just impressive to say the least…
The first medical malpractice cases in the United States centered around a breach of contract and not failure to adhere to a standard of care. This meant that the defendant physician made some sort of express promise to skillfully render care and obtain a good result. Failure to do so was grounds for a suit. Five years after George Washington's inauguration, the country saw its first recorded medical malpractice lawsuit. A man sued the surgeon who operated on his wife and caused her to die, despite having made promises to the two that he would operate skillfully and safely. This breach of contract case resulted in a plaintiff verdict and an award of 40 pounds.
The terms negligence and malpractice are often used interchangeably. Strictly speaking, negligence is a failure to “exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise” in similar circumstances. Medical malpractice, according to Andre Calitz, the chief operating officer for personal injury law practice Joseph’s Incorporated in Johannesburg, is an evaluation of conduct measured against a standard of medical care established by the medical fraternity.
Asking a lay juror to determine negligence in a field as nuanced and complex as medicine proved to be problematic. This issue was alleviated by formalizing the requirement of expert witnesses to assist the lay juror. On the issue, the Wisconsin Law Review wrote "The complexity of any technical field, medicine included, may well disable a lay juror who seeks independently to assess the relative risks and benefits attending a given course of conduct. That, however, only means that the juror needs advice from experts (genuine experts)' who can identify the risks and benefits at issue. Thus informed, there is no reason that a juror cannot and should not pass on the appropriateness of anyone's conduct, including a physician's."
Although the medical school adage of “treat the patient and not the test” has value, it’s also important for health-care providers to carefully assess the information provided by the tests that they order. I’ve witnessed many instances in which highly abnormal test results were either interpreted incorrectly or disregarded by physicians—sometimes with fatal consequences.
One exception to the general rule of informed consent is that of therapeutic privilege. While uncommon, doctor’s cannot be held responsible for untruths about a patient’s health when a worse threat could exist with complete disclosure. Such an example would be when the revelation of a debilitating condition might prompt suicidal actions on the part of the patient.
×