 |
Personal Injury - Defective Drugs
Want to Know What Your Case is Worth? Call us Toll Free at 1-888-628-5294
|
|
|
Personal Injury
Avandia ADHD Drugs/Adderall Fosamax Bextra Celebrex ED Drugs / Viagra ReNu with MoistureLoc Complete MoisturePlus Ortho Evra Patch Paxil Zelnorm Defective Medical Devices
|
Medical MalpracticeGet a FREE Consultation with a
|
||||||||
Proving Fault in Medical Malpractice Cases.
Legal liability for injuries caused by medical malpractice can be established under a number of legal theories:
Negligence.
Most medical malpractice cases proceed under the theory that a medical professional was negligent in treating the patient. To establish medical negligence, an injured patient, the plaintiff, must prove:
· The existence of a duty owed by the health care professional to the plaintiff (for example, a doctor/patient relationship);
· The applicable standard of care, and the health care professional's deviation from that standard, which is deemed a breach of the duty owed the patient;
· A causal relationship between the health care professional's deviation from the standard of care and the patient's injury;
· Injury to the patient.
To find a medical professional negligent, it must be shown that his or her conduct fell below a generally accepted standard of medical care. To establish the standard to be applied, a plaintiff must present the testimony of another medical expert, qualified in the same area of medicine as the defendant, indicating what standard, or level of care, is commonly met by those recognized in the profession as being competent and qualified to practice. The plaintiff will have to present expert testimony not only as to the applicable standard of care, but establishing that the defendant failed to meet this standard.
Negligent Prescription of Medications or Medical Devices.
A medical professional may be held liable for the negligent prescription of a medication or medical device if he or she ignored the manufacturer's instructions, or prescribed an incorrect medication or dosage, which resulted in injury to the patient. In some cases, a pharmaceutical manufacturer may be liable where a drug caused a patient injuries, but only if the manufacturer failed to warn of potential side effects or dangers of the drug. In most cases, the prescribing physician is considered a "learned intermediary," which means that because of his or her superior medical knowledge, and the fact that he or she has been given adequate information from the manufacturer, he or she is in the best position to determine whether a particular drug or device is appropriate for a patient. Thus, the physician has the primary duty of advising the patient of the risks and side effects of a medication or medical device he or she prescribes.
Informed Consent.
In many situations, the failure to obtain a patient's "informed consent" relative to a procedure or treatment is a form of medical negligence, and may even give rise to a cause of action for battery. Although the specific definition of informed consent may vary from state to state, it means essentially that a physician (or other medical provider) must tell a patient all of the potential benefits, risks, and alternatives involved in any surgical procedure, medical procedure, or other course of treatment, and must obtain the patient's written consent to proceed.
Breach of Contract or Warranty.
Although doctors very rarely promise specific results from procedures or treatments, in some cases they do, and the failure to produce the promised results may give rise to an action for breach of contract or breach of warranty. For example, a plastic surgeon may promise a patient a certain result, which result may be judged more easily than other types of medical results, simply by viewing the patient. Similarly, if a patient is not satisfied with the outcome of a procedure, and the physician had guaranteed or warranted a certain result, the patient may attempt to recover under a theory of breach of warranty.
Problems of Proof: The "Res Ipsa" Doctrine.
Establishing wrongdoing on the part of a health care provider is often difficult. It requires the hiring of experts, in the same field as the health care professional being charged with misconduct, who must testify as to what the defendant should have done under applicable professional standards. Proving malpractice is also difficult because the defendants are often the ones who write the medical reports that often form the basis of the suit. Since they are often the only ones who are present and know what really occurred when the negligence happened, and they choose how to describe the event, records are often not descriptive of what truly happened. In addition, some health care providers may frame their reports so as to protect someone guilty of misconduct.
Fortunately, the law recognizes that plaintiffs face certain difficulties in proving medical negligence. If a patient injured as the result of a medical procedure does not know exactly what caused his or her injury, but it is the type of injury that would not have occurred without negligence on the part of his or her health care provider(s), he or she may invoke a legal doctrine known as "res ipsa loquitur." Translated, this Latin phrase means "the thing speaks for itself," and implies that the plaintiff need only show that a particular result occurred and would not have occurred but for someone's negligence.
Once this doctrine is successfully invoked, the burden is not on the plaintiff to show how the defendant was negligent, but on the defendant to show that he or she was not negligent. To invoke this doctrine successfully, a plaintiff has to show that:
1) Evidence of the actual cause of the injury is not obtainable;
2) The injury is not the kind that ordinarily occurs in the absence of negligence by someone;
3) The plaintiff was not responsible for his or her own injury;
4) The defendant, or its employees or agents, had exclusive control of the instrumentality that caused the injury; and
5) The injury could not have been caused by any instrumentality other than that over which the defendant had control.
NationWide Law Group can assist individuals who are involved in a wide variety of Medical Malpractice matters. If you have suffered an injury that you believe is due to the negligence of a medical practitioner or hospital, you may be entitled to collect damages. Please call us at 888-628-5294 for a free legal consultation so that we can help you determine if you have a case.
Time Limit Considerations in Medical Malpractice Claims.
If you have been injured through a doctor's negligence, you may feel that you should adopt a "wait-and-see" approach with respect to your injury, and deciding whether you want to pursue your legal remedies. You should bear in mind that the law requires you to pursue legal remedies sooner rather than later. This requirement is generally known as "statute of limitations." If you fail to file your claim within the statute of limitations you may be forever barred from bringing your claim, regardless of the merit of your claim. Finally, statutes of limitations applicable to medical malpractice actions are often shorter than for other types of personal injury actions. Therefore, even if you do not think you will be bringing a lawsuit, consulting with an experienced personal injury attorney is essential to determine if any action should be taken to preserve your potential claim.
When Does the Statute Begin to Run in Medical Malpractice Cases?
Courts take different views on when the statute of limitations begins to run in medical malpractice cases. To some extent, the difference in these views is a reflection of the wording in the statutes. The difference also reflects the courts' views on the relative merit of protecting injured parties versus protecting medical providers by enabling them to defend themselves when records are still in existence and recollections are still fresh.
In some courts, the time for filing a claim begins to run upon the occurrence of the act or omission the plaintiff claims constituted malpractice. Other courts say that the time begins running when the act or omission results in injury. Another view is that the time begins to run when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered he or she was injured. A fourth view is that the time begins to run when the treatment concludes.
Things get even more complicated when the injured party dies. In the case of malpractice causing death, the courts must first decide whether the wrongful death statute applies or whether the statute of limitations for medical malpractice applies. Once that is decided, the court must then decide what triggers the running of the statute of limitations. The courts may say that the statute begins to run when the plaintiff dies. Or the court may decide that the statute begins to run when the action that allegedly caused the death occurs. Another court may decide that the time begins to run when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the harm done or that the death was caused by malpractice. Yet another view would be that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the last treatment, which may or may not be the date of death or the date the plaintiff discovered the harm done by the malpractice.
Getting Legal Help.
State laws are frequently revised from year-to-year, including statutes of limitations, so it is important to speak with an attorney to understand how your state's current laws will apply in your case. Go Error! Bookmark not defined. to find an experienced medical malpractice attorney near you. NationWide Law Group would be honored to assist you.
Responsible Parties in Medical Malpractice: Who Can Be Sued?
The legal concept of medical malpractice is not limited to the conduct of medical doctors, but applies also to nurses, anesthesiologists, health care facilities, pharmaceutical companies, and others that provide health care services.
Hospitals.
Hospitals are corporations that are either public or private entities. In the context of medical malpractice actions, hospitals can be held directly liable for their own negligence, and can also be held "vicariously" liable for the negligence of their employees. Vicarious liability means a party is held responsible not for its own negligence, but for the negligence of another.
Hospital Negligence.
A hospital's medical staff will consist of licensed physicians and other licensed health care providers, such as nurses, physician's assistants, and nurse practitioners. In hiring its medical staff, a hospital must make reasonable inquiries into an applicant's education, training and licensing. If a hospital fails to make reasonable inquiries regarding a member of its medical staff, it might be held liable under the "corporate negligence" doctrine for negligent supervision or retention, if the staff member's negligent care injures a patient. A hospital might be held liable for its own negligence where, for example, it fails to investigate the credentials of an attending physician before granting him/her privileges at the hospital, or where it allows a physician whom it knew, or should have known, was incompetent, to treat patients at the hospital.
Hospitals are also required to ensure that there is a sufficient number of registered nurses on duty at all times to maintain quality patient care. A hospital that fails to do so may be held liable for injuries to patients resulting from a nursing shortage. Another area of potential liability arises when a hospital's employees fail to follow the orders of a patient's private attending physician. Conversely, if a hospital employee finds a private physician's treatment plan to be clearly contraindicated, but fails to make a reasonable inquiry of the physician as to the treatment plan, the hospital could also be found liable.
Finally, hospitals may be held liable for failing to protect patients from harm, adequately perform clinical tests, keep accurate medical records, and properly admit and discharge patients. In the area of admissions, hospitals are generally required to treat seriously injured or ill people on an emergency basis, and the refusal to do so may result in hospital liability. Additionally, federal and state statutes prohibit hospitals from refusing to treat or admit people based on their race, color, religion or national origin, or on their inability to pay for treatment.
Vicarious Liability.
When a hospital employee's malpractice injures a patient, the hospital itself may be held vicariously liable under the legal doctrine of "respondeat superior." Under this doctrine, an employer may be held liable for the negligent acts of its employee, if the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment when the negligent act or omission occurred. This doctrine is very important to plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases, because it helps ensure there will be a financially responsible party to compensate an injured plaintiff.
In some situations, health care providers such as physicians are considered independent contractors rather than hospital employees, and the doctrine of "respondeat superior" will not be applicable. What this means is, if a doctor or other health care professional is an independent contractor, and commits malpractice while treating a patient in a hospital, the hospital cannot be held liable for the doctor's negligence. However, the hospital can be held liable for its own negligence, for example, in granting attending privileges to an unlicensed or incompetent physician.
Finally, in certain situations, a hospital may be vicariously or directly liable for the acts or omissions of contractors it retains to operate emergency rooms and outpatient facilities.
Pharmaceutical Companies.
In some cases, a pharmaceutical manufacturer may be liable where a drug caused a patient injuries, but only if the manufacturer failed to warn physicians of the drug's potential side effects or dangers.
A pharmaceutical manufacturer's primary duty is to physicians. Thus, a manufacturer generally will not be liable for a patient's injuries, as long as it adequately informed the physician of all risks associated with a particular drug. As to the ultimate consumer, a pharmaceutical company only owes a duty to ensure that the medication it manufactures will be reasonably safe when used as intended. To ensure a drug's safety, the manufacturer must research the drug's possible side effects and risks before putting it on the market. If the pharmaceutical manufacturer fails to adequately warn a physician of a drug's dangers, however, the drug becomes what is known under product liability law as "unreasonably dangerous," and the manufacturer might be held liable for the failure to provide proper warnings. In most cases, the prescribing physician is considered a "learned intermediary," which means that because of his or her superior medical knowledge, and assuming he or she has been given adequate information from the manufacturer, he or she is in the best position to determine whether a particular drug or device is appropriate for a patient. Thus, the physician has the primary duty of advising the patient of the risks and side effects of a medication or medical device he or she prescribes.
If you have been seriously injured by the actions of a doctor, insurance company, hospital, nurse or other medical professional, you can get a FREE consultation with a leading Personal Injury Attorney in your area who can offer legal help and assistance with your claim.
| Get a FREE Consultation with a Personal Injury Lawyer! | |
|
| |
