How to File a Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

A medical malpractice lawsuit against a hospital or doctor requires proof that the defendant acted in breach of his or her duty to patients. This can be evidence from hospitals and medical records.

Our attorneys have extensive experience in conducting effective depositions. They could be doctors, other medical professionals working in private practice, or employees at a hospital or clinic.

Negligence

Patients are entitled to receive certain standards of care when they visit a hospital, doctor or health professional. Unfortunately, in some cases these standards are not adhered to or even violated. The results of this breach can be devastating.

A lawsuit may be filed against a medical professional if patients are injured or suffers a death due to the negligence of the physician. To have a valid case the injured person must demonstrate four legal elements which are breach of duty, duty, damages and causation.

Malpractice is defined as the act or omission of a physician that deviates from the norms of practice accepted in the medical community, and results in injury to the patient. It is a subset of tort law, which deals with civil wrongs that aren't legally binding or criminal in nature.

Medical negligence differs from normal negligence in that the victim must demonstrate that the doctor knew, or ought to have known, that their actions were going to cause harm before they can claim malpractice. Normal negligence is not a requirement. A surgeon who accidentally cuts or nicks one of the nerves or veins during surgery is guilty of negligence, but not negligence. This is because the doctor didn't intend to cause harm to anyone.

In a medical malpractice lawsuit, the defendant has a legal obligation to treat the patient according to the standards of care that a reasonably prudent healthcare professional with the same knowledge and experience in similar circumstances would provide. The violation of this duty is an essential aspect because it proves that the alleged negligent behavior caused the injury.

Damages

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

To be able to claim damages, you have to prove that the doctor violated a duty of care, that the doctor's deviation from the standard of care caused injury, and that the injury caused quantifiable financial consequences. This is a complicated legal analysis that usually requires expert witness testimony.

Certain of these losses can be seen immediately, for instance, if a doctor's mistake resulted in an infection or other medical issue that required additional treatment. Certain damages are more difficult to spot in the event that the doctor is unable to diagnose your condition and you cannot get the right treatment.

You can sue wrongful death when a doctor's negligence caused your death. You may seek punitive damages in addition to the money you'd receive in a survival lawsuit.

In many states, there is a limit to the amount you can get in a malpractice case. These limits vary from state to state and typically apply to both economic and non-economic damages. Certain states also have rules that limit the time you have to wait to bring a lawsuit.

Time Limits

Like any lawsuit there are deadlines to be adhered to or the case could be barred. A malpractice lawsuits lawsuit is required to be filed between two and six years after the malpractice law firms occurred. The time limit differs by state.

It is important to consult an attorney as soon as possible. The law firm will conduct an investigation to determine whether a mistake occurred and whether it will be able to stand in the court. This phase can last for weeks or even months.

Medical malpractice cases are governed by different laws, and the statute of limitations is often modified. For instance, in Pennsylvania the patient must file a claim within two years from the day they discovered the malpractice or when a reasonable individual could have realized that the injury existed. This is referred to as the discovery rule.

In other states the statute of limitations starts to run from the date the malpractice occurred. This is problematic if the act does not immediately trigger symptoms. Consider, for instance, that a doctor negligently left a foreign body in the body of a patient following surgery. The patient might not find the foreign object until three or more years after the surgery. In this scenario, the statutes of limitations could have been in the year following the date of surgery, not the discovery of error.

Expert Witnesses

Expert witnesses are frequently asked to provide facts in medical malpractice cases. Expert witnesses for plaintiffs will be able to testify about the doctor's duty of providing medical care to the patient, the medical standards in the region and specialty for that type of physician with similar qualifications and skills and the manner in which the defendant violated those standards. The expert will also explain the way in which the defendant's actions directly caused the injury to the patient.

The defendant will hire a professional to counter the plaintiff's expert and give their professional opinion about whether the doctor was in compliance with the requirements of medical care. Experts may differ however the fact-finder determines which expert is the most reliable.

It is better for the expert to be working in the medical field, since they'll have a better knowledge of current practices. Jurors and judges typically believe that practicing professionals are more credible than experts whose sole source of income is the testifying in court.

It is also preferable to use an expert witness who has expertise in the field of malpractice. A medical expert who has had experience treating breast cancer for example, can make a convincing argument as to the reason for an injury. A medical malpractice attorney in Ocala knows which experts to ask.