In movies, television programs and literature, doctors are often portrayed to be infallible marvels who are able to work miracles in what seem to be hopeless situations. While physicians can often do amazing things, they cannot turn every case into a success story.
It is unreasonable for patients to expect perfection from their doctors, but it is entirely fair that medical professionals be held to real standards of care and proficiency. Those who fall short of these benchmarks and thus cause harm to their patients may find themselves on the losing end of a medical malpractice lawsuit.
Medical malpractice cases are frequently brought under a negligence theory. For negligence to be demonstrated, a plaintiff needs to show that the medical professional in question had a duty to the claimant, the medical professional deviated from the standard of care to which he or she is rightly held and that the deviation from the standard of care was what caused the injury to the plaintiff.
Though all three of these elements must be established in order to prove negligence, perhaps the most contentious aspect of most medical malpractice cases is the determination of the appropriate and accepted standard of care.
The standard of care is often broadly defined as a course of treatment that has wide acceptance on the part of medical experts as being appropriate for addressing a particular disease or condition and that is extensively used by a wide spectrum of medical professionals. The problem, however, is that there may be significant disagreement among medical experts as to what can rightly be deemed “standard” treatment under a given set of circumstances.
Generally speaking, the proper standard of care in medical contexts can be determined by looking at how comparably trained and qualified medical professionals would have treated a patient in the same situation. Further factors used to assess standard of care are things such as whether a doctor has exhibited the skill and attention that a competent doctor in the same field would and whether a doctor exhibited a level of knowledge and skill comparable to others in the local area. In cases where a doctor diverges from the course of action other physicians would have taken, they may be able to argue that a respectable minority of similarly situated practitioners would have taken similar action.
To prove a breach of the standard of care in a medical malpractice action, the testimony of medical experts trained in the same specialty as the defendant physician will be essential. Such an expert will be used to establish the relevant standard of care as well as to lend support to the allegation that the defendant failed to meet it.
Victims of medical malpractice may initially feel they have little chance of prevailing simply because the doctor at issue is the one who crafted the medical reports relevant to the matter and who may be the only person able to describe or potentially mischaracterize the events that transpired. However, there are safeguards in the law that can help mitigate this type of imbalance.
The legal doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur,” or “the thing speaks for itself” can be utilized to help plaintiffs successfully argue that their injury is simply not the sort of harm that could have occurred in the absence of the negligence alleged. If this construct is involved successfully, the burden of proof shifts. It will no longer be the plaintiff’s duty to prove negligence, but rather it will be the defendant’s responsibility to demonstrate that he or she was not negligent.
For this shifting to occur, a plaintiff needs to demonstrate that:
· Evidence of the true cause of the injury is unavailable
· The injury is not one that typically happens without the negligence of another
· The plaintiff did not cause his or her own injury
· The defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality of injury
· There were no other potential causes of injury besides that over which the defendant had complete control
While conclusively establishing medical malpractice can be a difficult process, patients who have been injured by a breach of the relevant standard of care should not hesitate to seek compensation.
yourbirthexperience
moniteurcycliste
dki
denkmalprojekt
developer-week
infofer
qracian
convention
lyricsdownload
bellgossett
iresearchbook
pickaso
dillinger
balanceme
45
sprucerd
138
bambule
wapsotka
modelisme
classyessay
softmindersinc
hctax
mtnstopshiv
mfhea
mjjfcrpfhifnoq
steeltechsheds
sxj08
arbetsdomstolen
panorama
cssyq
weihai
stopaquatichitchhikers
mlmgateway
landh
researchnet-recherchenet
392149
enterthehealingschool
ukonkemerovo
456aq
mydubaipass
calenturesolutions
theduran
stopfalls
involvio
flood-map-for-planning
desede
julpe
isoclima
shatkinfirst
chargeafter
resurs-online
filemaker
johnadamswebdesign
mg10
historia
visitgroup
goersapp
viagrastore
diamondbank
91jmw
nycommonpantry
meidi-ya-store
idobiradio
test-guide
gesund
mexicotravelclub
musiad
careersinthemilitary
ui1
justiceinfo
tele
oliverands
dezyre
mycity
sunpotion
silverspot
okaloosa
twitraining
lilyardor
cdc-habitat
renoguide
secretasianman
meteocontrol
wealthify
xmsmwl
ahead
daikinproshop
yzycwl
exforddemo
otik
eighteen36designs
forum-boisconstruction
entrepreneursdumonde
gedys-intraware
michaelnygard
csp-inc
stern-wywiol-gruppe
alpha
blogthisbiz
cqjy
trondao
server-ke436
nuclear-ape
wpcount
swagency
europesworld
bestdo
vlp
tudn
rtpmurah4d
meripelastus
lucidcafe
dwz
opptrends
techir
fortunetwork
xjauto
stocktondemonstration
param
locallistings123
muathengay
cqqingjie888
w4223
459kkkk
handlopolis
eaberlin
metro-u
germanblogs
canaldeajuda
day-trading
innovyze
osell
futureinvestmentinitiative
hqtubebank
servicetax
scoular
po-net
ecctaa
roswell-nm
ourgssi
wicon-touristik
wangzhanbaojia
waste4change
placedesvetos
evanstonwe
mysweet-finder
photoireland
conditioningtechnician
ipghealth
ybindu
plib
timendo
998559
tcn-catv
freelancing-gods
at-bay
audit
eggcblog
3ybbb
leadbit
unitedworx
gimpel
ten-1097
essayworldwide
easyvote
ncgr
best-party
thesportsgeek
balloon-juice
masscdn
sbp-journal
dalloz-etudiant
agriculture
