Ten Things You Shouldn t Post On Twitter

How to File a Medical malpractice lawsuit (133 noted)

A medical malpractice lawsuit against a doctor or hospital must prove that the defendant violated his or her duty to patients. This evidence could include hospital and medical documents.

Our attorneys have a wealth of experience in taking effective depositions. They may be doctors, other medical professionals in private practice, or working at a clinic or hospital.

Negligence

Patients have the right to be treated with respect to certain standards when they visit a doctor, hospital, or health care professional. Unfortunately these standards aren't always met or even complied with. The consequences of this breach could be devastating.

When someone is injured or death as a result of a doctor's malpractice, they may file a lawsuit against the medical professional. To have a valid case the injured person must demonstrate four legal elements including breach of duty and damages and causation.

Malpractice can be defined as an action by the doctor that is against the norms of the medical profession and results in injury to the patient. It is a subset of tort law, which deals with civil wrongs that are not legal obligations or criminal offenses.

Medical negligence differs from normal negligence in that the person who is injured must prove that the doctor knew or should have known that their actions could cause harm in order to prove malpractice, whereas normal negligence does not. A surgeon who accidentally nicks or cuts a vein or nerve during surgery is guilty of negligence, but not negligence. This is because the surgeon did not intend to harm anyone.

In an instance of medical malpractice the defendant's responsibility is to treat the patient according with the standard of care that a prudent health care professional of similar experience and qualifications could provide in similar situations. The violation of this duty is a crucial element because it demonstrates that the negligent act caused the injury.

Damages

Damages in a malpractice case are based on the losses you sustained due to a doctor's negligence. This could include financial losses, like future medical costs, as well as non-economic damages like pain and discomfort.

To claim damages, you must prove that the doctor violated a duty of care, that the doctor's deviation from that standard caused injury, and that this injury had quantifiable monetary consequences. This is a difficult legal analysis that usually requires expert witness testimony.

Some of these losses are obvious, such as if your doctor made an error that resulted in an illness or other medical issue and you needed to seek additional treatment as a result. Some damages are more difficult to see in the event that the doctor is unable to diagnose your condition and you are unable to receive the proper treatment.

If the negligence of your doctor causes your death then you can sue for the wrongful death. In these claims you're entitled to the same amount you could have gotten in a survival action in addition to punitive damages.

In most states, there is a limit on the amount you can be awarded when you file a claim for malpractice. These limits vary from state to state and are generally applicable to both economic and other damages. Some states have laws that limit how long you can delay before filing an action.

Time Limits

Like any lawsuit, there are specific time limits which must be adhered to or the case could be dismissed. A malpractice suit must typically be filed between two and six years after the incident occurred. The exact time frame is different for each state.

It is essential to speak with an attorney as soon as possible. The law firm will investigate to determine if there was a mistake and whether the case will be heard in the court. This phase can last for weeks or even months.

Medical malpractice cases are governed by different laws than other types of cases, and often the statute of limitations is altered. For example in Pennsylvania a patient must submit a claim within two years of the date they realized the malpractice or the date a reasonable person would have known that the harm existed. This is known as the discovery rule.

In other states, the statute of limitations starts at the time the malpractice occurred. This is problematic if the act doesn't immediately cause symptoms. For instance, suppose doctors mistakenly leave a foreign object in the body after surgery. The patient may not realize the object until three years after the procedure. In this instance, the statutes of limitations could have started at the time of the procedure, not necessarily the moment of identifying the error.

Expert Witnesses

Expert witnesses are often called upon to clarify the facts in medical malpractice cases. A plaintiff's expert witness will be able to testify about the doctor's duty of care to the patient, the medical standards in the area and the specialization for doctors with similar qualifications and expertise and the manner in which the defendant violated those standards. The expert will explain how the defendant's departure directly caused the patient's injury.

The defendant will hire an expert to counter the plaintiff's expert and offer their professional opinion as to whether the doctor met the standards of care. The experts may disagree but the fact-finder is the one who decides which expert is the most trustworthy.

It is advisable for the expert to be still working in the medical field since they are more informed about current practice. Judges and jurors are likely to believe that practicing professionals are more trustworthy than experts who rely solely on the testimony of a court.

It is also better to choose an expert with expertise in the area of malpractice. For instance an expert in medicine who is well versed in dealing with breast cancer can present a an even more convincing case for the reason for an injury suffered by a plaintiff. A medical malpractice lawyer in Ocala will know what experts to ask.