Medical malpractice occurs when a health care provider renders treatment that deviates from the accepted standard of practice in the medical community. Essentially, the care provided does not meet the requisite level of care that should have been given by the medical professional, leading to personal injury or even death of the patient.
The standards used to judge whether a healthcare provider has rendered proper care vary by community, jurisdiction or even by country. Sometimes, a given practice is deemed acceptable in one region of a country or jurisdiction but has not been adopted elsewhere.
The parties typically involved in these types of cases include the plaintiff (the injured person) or a representative of the injured person (i.e. the executor of an estate) when the underlying malpractice leads to the person’s death, as well as the healthcare providers, meaning the hospital or facility the medical care was provided, the doctor who rendered the care, and any nurses that may have contributed to the injury.
Medical malpractice cases must be commenced by an accompanying opinion which states there is merit to the claim. A major obstacle in medical malpractice claims, however, is proving there was an actual deviation from a standard of care because the medical community is replete with doctors who render their own “opinion” as to what the requisite level of care should have been. In laymen terms, doctors give their opinions as to what procedures or treatment should have been done based on a given set of facts surrounding a person’s symptoms, and since there is no “bright line” rule about what types of procedures or treatments should be given (hence why it is called a doctor’s “opinion”), proving a deviation from the standard is difficult.
The recently handed-down decision of Goodrow v. Sarmaroy is an example of this difficulty. The Plaintiff in Goodrow underwent various procedures, including removal of her gall bladder in 2010. She alleged that Doctor Sarmaroy deviated from accepted standards of medical care when he either pinched or clipped the hepatic duct and later failed to discover the error and related symptoms. The hepatic duct drains bile from the liver into the intestines, an important function for maintaining liver and digestive health.
The plaintiff moved for summary judgment; while the plaintiff showed there may have been deviations from the standard of care, Doctor Sarmaroy proffered enough evidence, in the form of factually supported opinions, to show he made reasonable efforts to avoid injuring the hepatic duct, thereby defeating the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion.
Clearly, doctors can differ on what types of treatments should be prescribed to patients even when given the same set of facts. This is why medical malpractice cases are difficult to win and could potentially cost a great deal to prosecute and defend once the parties retain experts who spend time reviewing the file, rendering reports and affidavits and also testifying in court. The key is to carefully consider the facts of a case prior to instituting a law suit to ensure there are clear deviations from the relevant standard of care (which usually requires medical expertise to begin with) to determine if the case is worth pursuing.
If you have been injured due the negligence of a doctor or medical facility, call the Experienced Lawyers at the Ginarte Law Firm at 1-888-GINARTE today. You may be entitled to money for your injuries. We are ready to get started on your case today. Put our 150 years of combined experience to work for you!