How to File a Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

The filing of a medical malpractice law firms lawsuit against a doctor or hospital requires proof that the defendant breached his or her obligation to patients. This evidence may include hospital and medical documents.

Our lawyers have years of expertise in obtaining depositions that are successful. They could be doctors, other medical professionals in private practice, or employees at a hospital or clinic.

Negligence

When a patient sees a doctor or hospital professional is entitled to certain standards of medical treatment. Unfortunately, these standards are not always met or even complied with. The results of this breach can be devastating.

A lawsuit can be filed against a medical professional when a patient is injured or dies because of the negligence of the doctor. To be able to make a valid claim, the patient must prove that there are four legal elements present: duty, breach of duty, causation and damages.

Malpractice can be defined as an act by a doctor that is outside the accepted norms in the medical profession and results in injury to a patient. It is a subset of tort law that addresses civil wrongs that do not fall under contractual duties or criminal offenses.

Medical negligence is distinct from normal negligence in that the party who suffers has to demonstrate that the doctor knew, or ought to have known, that their actions were likely to cause harm before they can claim malpractice. Normal negligence is not a requirement. A surgeon who accidentally cuts or nicks an artery or nerve during surgery is guilty of negligence but not negligence. This is because the doctor didn't intend to cause harm to anyone.

In the case of medical negligence the defendant's obligation is to treat the patient in line with the standards of care a qualified health professional with similar experience and training could provide in similar situations. The breach of this duty is a crucial element since it proves that the alleged negligence caused the injury.

Damages

Damages in a malpractice case are determined by the losses you have suffered due to negligence by a doctor. They can be a combination of financial loss, like the cost of future medical expenses, and non-economic losses like suffering and pain.

In order to obtain damages, it is necessary to prove that a doctor violated the law and that his violation of the standard of care resulted in injuries, and that the injury caused financial harm that was quantifiable. This is a difficult legal analysis that usually requires expert witness testimony.

Certain of these losses can be spotted quickly, for example the case where a doctor's error led to an infection, or other medical issues that required further treatment. Some damages are more difficult to identify in the event that the doctor is unable to diagnose your condition and you don't receive the correct treatment.

If your doctor's malpractice causes you to die or death, you can file a lawsuit for the cause of death. You may seek punitive damages in addition to the compensation you'd get in a lawsuit for survival.

In most states, there are limits on what you can claim in a malpractice case. The caps differ by state and typically apply to both economic and non-economic damages. Certain states have laws that limit the time you can wait before filing a lawsuit.

Time Limits

As with all lawsuits, there are specific time limits which must be adhered to or the case could be barred. A malpractice lawsuit is required to be filed between two and six years after the malpractice occurred. The time frame varies by state.

It is important to talk with an attorney as soon as you can. The law firm will conduct an investigation to determine whether a mistake occurred and if it will be able to stand in the court. This process can take up to a few weeks or even months.

Medical malpractice cases are governed by different laws than other types of cases and often the statute of limitations is modified. For instance, in Pennsylvania the patient has to make a claim within two years of the date they discovered the malpractice or that a reasonable person could have realized that the injury existed. This is referred to as the discovery rule.

In other states the statute of limitations starts at the time the malpractice occurred. This could be problematic if the act does not immediately cause symptoms. For instance, suppose that a doctor negligently leaves an object that is foreign in the body after surgery. The patient may not discover the foreign object until three or more years after the surgery. In that scenario the statute of limitations might have started to start running from the date of the procedure, not the time of discovery of the error.

Expert Witnesses

A lot of medical malpractice cases rely on expert witnesses to explain the details of the case. An expert witness for the plaintiff will testify on the duty of the doctor to the patient, medical guidelines for doctors with similar qualifications in their area and specialty and the ways in which the defendant's conduct was different from the standards. The expert will explain how the deviance directly contributed to the patient's injury.

The defendant will employ an expert to challenge the plaintiff's expert and offer their professional opinion on whether the doctor met the standards of care. The experts may disagree but the fact-finder will decide which expert is most reliable.

It is better for the expert to working in the medical field, since they'll have a greater understanding of current practice. Jurors and judges often believe that practicing professionals are more credible than experts whose sole source of income is a testimony in court.

It is also recommended to have an expert witness who is skilled in the field of legal malpractice. A medical expert with had experience treating breast cancer for instance, can present a an argument that is convincing as to the cause of an injury. A medical malpractice attorney in Ocala will know which experts to speak with.