Contact for Free Attorney Information Packet
 

Posts Tagged ‘dental malpractice’

Releases in Medical Malpractice and Dental Malpractice Cases

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

Release

You became dissatisfied with your doctor and went to another doctor without telling him.  It happens all the time.  Or, you signed yourself out of the hospital, and the nurses and doctor made you sign a statement that you were leaving of your own accord and against the doctor’s advice.  If you do that and terminate your relationship with a doctor or a hospital, you have released them.  They are no longer responsible for what happens to you.  You become responsible for everything that happens to you from that moment onward, including aggravation or complications of your previous injuries because of failure to follow-up with your medical care.

However, it is important to note that a release, whether just implied by your actions or actually written out, only releases the doctor or hospital for whatever happens in the future.  It does not cancel out any responsibility for what has already been done to you.  If you go to another doctor or hospital, they become responsible for everything that is done from the time they accept you as a patient.

Just because you signed a release does not mean you have given up any of your rights for what was done to you before you signed the release.  If you are asked to sign a release for things that have already happened, it is illegal, and the courts will not recognize it.

What if you are asked to sign a release before you are treated?  That is only good for getting your consent to risky treatment, as already explained in the post on assumption of the risk, and it cannot be used as an excuse for medical malpractice or dental malpractice, because no one can ask you to sign away your protection under the law.

The exception to this is a consent to submit any dispute or malpractice claim to arbitration, instead of going to court.  Some states recognize and enforce such agreements.  Others consider them an infringement of your constitutional right to have your case decided by a jury of your peers.  You will have to check with your lawyer to find out whether arbitration agreements are legal and binding in your state.

Insurance Release

It is important for you to know that the release an insurance company adjuster might ask you to sign, in return for a quick settlement of your claim, is different and is legally binding.  That is because it has nothing to do with the doctor’s treatment and is a contract between you and the insurance company.  You are getting valuable consideration in the form of a quick settlement of your claim, in return for your agreement to settle for a smaller amount.  Since the insurance company is not the person who caused your injuries, it does not have to justify its actions.

The Rule Is: If you believe that you have been the victim of medical malpractice or dental malpractice, do not sign anything without your lawyer’s approval.  If you do not have a lawyer, do not sign anything until you do and he or she approves.

Assumption of the Risk in Medical Malpractice and Dental Malpractice Cases

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010

Assumption of the Risk is a legal term that means you knowingly assumed responsibility for what happened, because you agreed to take an unnecessary risk.  Your doctor tells you that you can have an operation that will cure you right away, but it is risky and has a 50% chance of a bad result.  He explains the safe alternative is a long course of medical treatment.  You want to get it over with and decide to go ahead anyway.  You have assumed the risk and cannot hold the doctor responsible for what goes wrong.

You have been in a hospital with pneumonia and are feeling a lot better.  The doctor tells you that you are not out of the woods and should remain in the hospital.  If you go home, you could suffer a relapse or serious complications.  But, you have urgent business and sign yourself out of the hospital against the doctor’s advice.  You have assumed the risk, and if something goes wrong, you are solely to blame.

It is another way of stating that you have released the doctor from responsibility for the outcome of his treatment.  You knew what you were doing and took your chances with your eyes wide open.  This defense is usually trotted out when the doctor has done something unusually risky, and it has turned out badly.  He says, “I explained all the risks to my patient, but she decided to go ahead anyway.”

Does it relieve the doctor of all responsibility?  No.  It does not excuse medical malpractice or dental malpractice and only excuses the doctor when he can show that your bad result was due to risks inherent in the treatment or arising out of your own actions, like not following his orders.  If he warns you the treatment he is going to give you is risky and also commits malpractice, he cannot blame you for the bad result.

Why not?  Because you cannot consent to a wrongful act.  No matter what you agreed to, or how flagrantly you disregarded your doctor’s advice, if your injuries were due to his malpractice, he cannot lay the blame on you.  It is not enough for the doctor just to tell you that something is risky.  He also has to explain precisely what the risks and dangers are.  He has to tell you about all the common risks, even if they are not serious, and about the uncommon risks if they have serious consequences.

It is not enough for the doctor to say you assumed the risk.  He has to offer some proof that you consciously took the additional risks, such as a reliable witness or a written consent.  This is because the courts assume you are what lawyers call the Reasonable Person, someone who would not take unreasonable risks or do foolish things.  If the doctor wants to justify himself by saying you took an unnecessary risk, then he has the burden of coming forward with evidence to show that you did.  You do not have to show that you did not.

What if the doctor says, “Everybody knows brain surgery is dangerous.  The patient should have asked me about the risks.  If he did not bother to or care enough to ask, then he was careless and assumed the risk.”  How do you answer that?  The same rule we just explained also applies here.

The Rule Is: A patient cannot be criticized for placing complete trust and confidence in the doctor.  The doctor is the expert, who knows what the risks and dangers are.  He has to offer the warnings, you do not have to ask.

Comparative Negligence in Medical Malpractice and Dental Malpractice Cases

Wednesday, May 26th, 2010

Some states have what is called comparative negligence.  Under this theory, the court estimates what percentage of the responsibility is due to your actions, and how much can be blamed on the doctor or the hospital.

Imagine that you went to a hospital ER with pneumonia.  The doctors and nurses told you that you should stay in the hospital but failed to warn you of the dangers and risks you ran by leaving.  You did not think it was serious and signed yourself out against their advice.  You later developed serious complications and want to sue the hospital.

In a state that uses contributory negligence, you would probably be barred from collecting anything, because your behavior in defiance of the doctor’s orders was a substantial cause of your damages.  However, in a comparative negligence state, the jury might say that the doctor was 20% responsible, the hospital was 20% responsible, and you were 60% at fault.  Under the legal theory of comparative negligence, it is possible to be awarded damages, even if you were 90% to blame for what happened to you.

Effect of Comparative Negligence on Your Case

Comparative negligence is more favorable to you.  The judge or jury cannot dismiss your case, because you were partly to blame.  Theoretically, you can receive something, even if you were almost entirely responsible for what happened to you.  However, your chances of winning anything are not very good, if your actions were responsible for more than 50% of your damages.  Jurors are not impressed by people who are largely responsible for their own troubles.  Lawyers call it “going into court with unclean hands.”  Even though the law says you can receive an award when you were the one mainly responsible for your bad results, the jury will probably see you as an opportunist and side with the doctor.

If you think you may have been partly to blame, you should discuss it openly with your lawyer and let him decide whether your chances of winning merit the cost and trouble of going ahead with the case.

Contributory and Comparative Negligence States

Only five states still recognize the pure contributory negligence rule, which says that a damaged party cannot recover any damages if he is even 1% at fault: Alabama, District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia.

THE RULE IS: If you are accused of contributory or comparative negligence, the defendants must prove your action met the following conditions:

1. It must have been willful and deliberate.

2. It must have occurred at the same time as the doctor’s malpractice.  If it occurred later, it can only be used by the doctor’s lawyer as a mitigating factor to reduce the dollar value of your damages.

3. It must have made your bad result worse than it would have been if you had followed instructions.  If it did not have any effect on the course or the outcome of your illness, it cannot be used against you at all - no matter what you did.

Contributory Negligence in Medical Malpractice and Dental Malpractice Cases

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

An Illinois man went to a hospital ER after being hit in the head with a bottle during a bar fight.  He was belligerent, staggering, confused, and had slurred speech.  The doctors thought he was drunk and did not pay much attention to him.  They allowed him to sign himself out against their advice.  He went home; his family put him to bed to sleep it off.  In the morning, they could not wake him.  He was rushed back to the hospital where it was found that he had been suffering from a skull fracture and brain injury and was not drunk at all.  He could have been saved when he first went to the ER, but by the time he returned to the ER, the pressure on his brain had caused an irreversible coma and he died.

His family sued the hospital, claiming he should never have been allowed to leave the hospital without a thorough work-up, which would have revealed the head injury and allowed surgeons to save his life.  The hospital claimed contributory negligence, because the patient had signed himself out of the hospital against medical advice.  The court said his action was not negligent, because it was not willful.  In his confused mental state from the brain injury, he did not realize what he was doing.

A Florida man suffered a broken leg in a motorcycle accident.  It was set incorrectly in the hospital.  He ended up permanently lame due to a crooked leg.  When he sued, the doctor moved to have the lawsuit dismissed because of contributory negligence.  The doctor claimed the bad result of his treatment had been made worse, because the patient had been too active while still in the cast.  The Florida court refused to dismiss the case, because the contributory negligence had occurred long after the doctor’s malpractice in setting the leg.  However, it did reduce the amount of the jury award, because the man had actually tried to play football, and his activity made the results of the doctor’s malpractice much worse.

It is not contributory negligence, if you dismiss a doctor who has lost your confidence.  You certainly do not have to continue following the advice of a doctor, if you think he is not handling your case right.  If that happens, and you are not in a hospital, you simply go to another doctor.  If you are in a hospital, you should ask your doctor to call in a qualified consultant.  If your doctor refuses to call in another doctor, ask the hospital administrator to intervene.  If he refuses, call your lawyer.  You are always entitled to a substitution of doctors, if a qualified substitute is available.

The Effects of Contributory Negligence on Your Case

Contributory negligence can have two effects on a medical malpractice lawsuit or dental malpractice lawsuit.  First, if the defense lawyers can show that your willful conduct seriously influenced the outcome, they can ask the judge to dismiss your complaint.  Second, they can use it to persuade the jury to rule for the defendant.  If the jury decides your actions were 50%, or more responsible, it will probably award you nothing.

An Indiana man suffered severe chest pains while playing tennis.  He went to a hospital ER where an ECG (electrocardiogram) showed signs of an early heart attack.  Hospital admission was advised but he refused and left the hospital against medical advice.  Later that day, he resumed playing tennis and dropped dead on the court.  The widow’s malpractice suit against the hospital for failure to use more vigorous persuasion was dismissed, because of her husband’s contributory negligence in ignoring the advice of the ER doctor.

Medical and Dental Malpractice

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

Were You Partly to Blame?

A doctor gives you a prescription for medication, or tells you that you need emergency surgery, and you do not follow through and ignore his advice.  You are in a hospital and decide that you want to go home.  The doctors tell you that you are in no condition to leave, but you sign yourself out and go home anyway.  You secretly take your own sleeping pills to the hospital, in violation of the hospital rules.  Are you responsible if something bad happens?  Yes.  You cannot hold a doctor responsible for the results of your willful disregard of his advice.

It is known as Contributory Negligence in some states and Comparative Negligence in other states.  There are important differences in the two concepts and the effects they can have on a medical malpractice case or a dental malpractice case.  Check which concept applies in your state.  You could have a valid case in one state and a meritless case in another state.

If your doctor advises you to have treatment and you refuse and something goes wrong, or if you sign yourself out of the hospital against the advice of the doctors.  In a contributory negligence state, it will probably prevent you from collecting a judgment.  In a comparative negligence state, it will reduce the amount of your award.

Sometimes a patient who is drugged, mentally disturbed, confused, or senile will do something against a doctor’s order, and something bad will happen.  The defense attorneys will claim there was contributory negligence, but that argument will not stand up.  It has to be a deliberate and conscious act by someone who knows what they are doing.

In a Maryland case, a confused, senile elderly lady climbed over the bedrails and walked as far as the bathroom before she passed out.  As she fell, she grabbed a hot water pipe with both hands.  By the time she was found, her hands were so badly burned by holding the hot pipe that they had to be amputated.  The defense lawyers claimed contributory negligence, but the court said no, because she did not do it deliberately.

It is not enough for a doctor to say that you left the hospital against his advice, or agreed to a risky treatment.  He has to either show you agreed in writing or he has to produce a reliable witness.  It is up to the defendants to prove you were guilty of contributory negligence or that you knowingly assumed an unusual risk.  You do not have to prove that you did not.

THE RULE IS: Your actions must have been willful and deliberate, have occurred at the same time as the medical malpractice or dental malpractice, and have contributed to the bad results.

Negligent Errors in Making a Diagnosis

Tuesday, April 13th, 2010

A doctor’s duty to make a correct diagnosis requires him to inform himself by ordering the necessary tests, interpreting the test results correctly, and arriving at a logical conclusion by putting all the pieces of the diagnostic picture in their proper places and perspectives.  With the sophisticated diagnostic tools today, a wrong diagnosis is more often the result of negligent or careless diagnostic work-up than lack of medical knowledge.  It is often impossible to make a precise diagnosis, but there is rarely an excuse for making a wrong diagnosis.  The following are some of the most common negligent errors:

1. Failure to do all routine screening tests indicated by the patient’s history or physical findings.

2. Ignoring test results which do not fit in with the doctor’s preconceived idea of what is wrong with the patient, especially when those results are positive.

3. Failure to repeat laboratory tests periodically or if the patient’s condition does not respond as expected.

4. Attributing the patient’s illness to a previous disease without checking to learn whether or not a new condition has developed.

5. Reliance on negative laboratory results, which do not square with other test results or the patient’s general condition, especially if the patient’s condition continues to decline.

6. Failure to repeat physical examinations and laboratory tests at frequent intervals during the course of a long illness.

In a Florida case, a 50 year-old man, with a history of smoking, went to a doctor complaining of wheezing and pain in the chest, a clinical picture suggestive of lung cancer.  Even though the doctor was a specialist in Internal Medicine, he treated the patient and failed to take a chest x-ray for almost a year.  When another doctor finally ordered a chest x-ray, the man’s lung cancer was inoperable.

In a Georgia case, an elderly man in a nursing home complained of passing blood in his urine.  This is a cardinal sign of cancer of the urinary tract and demands an immediate and complete work-up to identify the cause.  However, the nursing home doctor did nothing about it for over a year, even though the bleeding was repeatedly noted in his chart, and the nursing home staff did nothing to notify the man’s family or any other doctor.  When his family finally found out and took him to a urologist, he was found to have terminal kidney cancer and died within a few weeks.

Now that you know what constitutes medical malpractice or dental malpractice, you can decide whether your doctor actually committed a departure from good and accepted practice that caused your bad results and is grounds for a malpractice lawsuit.  Do not think about the words malpractice or negligence, which carry a moral implication of wrongdoing.  Think about a departure from good and accepted practice.  Did the doctor or the hospital employee do something that was not in keeping with accepted practices by good doctors?  Did he make a serious mistake that a good and careful doctor should not have made?

The Rule Is: A valid medical malpractice case or dental malpractice case should be based upon a showing that the doctor did something that a good and careful doctor, in the same or similar situation, under the same or similar circumstances, would not have done.

Rules in Medical and Dental Malpractice

Tuesday, March 30th, 2010

The Best Judgment Rule

Another thing you may run into is the best judgment rule.  This says that your doctor did not guarantee a good result.  He only promised to do his best for you and cannot be faulted, if your condition did not respond as you had hoped or for making an honest mistake.  The practice of medicine or dentistry is an art, not a science.  Some diseases are so obscure it is impossible to make an accurate diagnosis.  Sometimes what looks like ideal treatment produces disastrous results.  But, with the sophisticated diagnostic equipment available today, doctors should not make serious mistakes in diagnosis.

For example, your doctor says, “When we got into your abdomen, you did not have a perforated stomach ulcer.  It turned out to be pancreatitis, and you did not need surgery.”  Can he do that and get away with it?  Yes.  But, not that easily.  To plead an honest mistake, he has to satisfy four conditions:

1. He has to have performed a careful diagnostic work-up.  The rule is that errors in diagnosis and treatment are malpractice, if based on a careless or inadequate diagnostic work-up.  The doctor who performed surgery failed to do a white blood cell count or some other important diagnostic test before surgery.  This is malpractice.  This is where a lot of doctors get caught.  The doctor is in a hurry to get away from the office, or operating room, or to see too many patients and skips over an important test.

2. The doctor must interpret the test data correctly.  You are going to have exploratory abdominal surgery but might be pregnant.  The surgeon orders a pregnancy test but goes ahead without learning the result of the test.  You later learn the pregnancy test was positive, and he operated on a pregnant uterus and you lost the baby.  Is he liable?  Yes.  The doctor has to have made a diligent attempt to put the big picture together from all the test data before making his decision.

3. There must be a legitimate choice between different and competing techniques.  The doctor has to be able to produce a textbook or authoritative medical article that says you can do it either way, and he chose one that turned out to be wrong.

4. The choice has to be one that a respectable minority of doctors would have made.

If the doctor says he used his best judgment, he has to have met these four conditions to justify a bad result and not be guilty of malpractice.  He is admitting that he made a mistake and is offering the excuse that he committed a justifiable error of judgment.  In order to do so, he has the burden of showing that his error was truly justifiable and not due to negligent behavior on his part.

Rules in Medical and Dental Malpractice

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

School of Thought Rule

You have already read about the New Jersey case, which held that a podiatrist cannot be expected to treat a cardiac arrest, because he is only trained to work below the ankle.  However, an Arizona podiatrist treated an elderly man for pain in the leg and lameness.  When the patient asked if they should call in another doctor, the podiatrist told him it was not necessary, and everything would be all right.  The man had a blockage of the artery to the leg; he eventually developed gangrene and had to have the leg amputated.  He sued for medical malpractice, alleging that arterial bypass surgery could have saved his leg.  He won his case.

What about chiropractors?  They believe diseases are caused by pressure on the spinal nerves and cannot be held to the same standard as M.D.’s or D.O.’s.  However, they are expected to know when a disease is beyond their skills and refer the patient to a doctor.  A Pennsylvania woman consulted a chiropractor about pains in her back.  He took a chest x-ray and manipulated her back for over a year.  When she did not improve, she went to a doctor who found that she had advanced cancer of the lung.  It was visible on the x-ray taken by the chiropractor, and at that time, it was in an early stage.  She sued for medical malpractice and won.  The chiropractor claimed he was not a radiologist, an x-ray specialist, and could not be expected to read x-rays as well as a specialist.  But, the judge said that if he took x-rays, and his patients relied on his reading them, he had a duty to read them correctly.

How About Faith Healers and Religious Counselors?

Your chances of prosecuting a successful lawsuit for malpractice against a religious counselor or faith healer are not very good.  Since there are no recognized standards as to what is acceptable practice for faith healing, it is virtually impossible to establish a complaint of malpractice, which is a departure from good and accepted practice.

If a faith healer or religious counselor is connected with a religious organization, he is probably protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and immune to lawsuit.  About the only claim that has much chance of success against a faith healer or religious counselor is if you have a treatable, medical illness and one of them persuades you not to consult a doctor by promising you a faith cure.

In a California case, the parents of a boy who committed suicide sued his religious counselor for malpractice.  They lost the case because: 1.) a religious counselor is not a psychiatrist and cannot be held to the standard of competence of a psychiatrist, and 2.) all communications between a clergyman and a believer were private and privileged under the Constitution and could not be inquired into by the court.

The Doctor Went Outside His School of Thought or Specialty

There is one common exception, to all these limitations on liability that comes up frequently.  Whenever a doctor holds himself out as a specialist, or undertakes a medical or dental case that should be handled by another school of thought, medical or dental specialty, he can be held to the standard of that specialty.

If your family doctor treats a serious eye condition, which turns out badly, and you lose the eye, and he says, “It could not be helped.  I did my best, but I am not an eye specialist.”  Is that a valid excuse?  No.  If he undertook to do what a specialist should normally have done, he can be held to the level of a specialist.  Today, some doctors go outside their field and do things which they are not trained or qualified to do.  If it turns out badly, they cannot plead ignorance.

As long as a doctor stays within his area of expertise, he is protected by what lawyers call the presumption of competence, which means the law believes he was competent to do whatever he did.  You have the burden of showing he did something wrong.  He does not have to prove he did it right.  But, if he goes outside his field, that is more difficult for him.  It is more difficult to prove you did not do something wrong.

Podiatrists and oral surgeons may commit malpractice in their own field or if they go outside their field.  For instance, if a podiatrist tries to do knee surgery or an oral surgeon works on the ear or neck, and anything goes wrong, they are on the defensive.

There are two exceptions to the standard of care that you have to be aware of, the respectable minority and error of judgment rules.  They will be discussed in our next post.

Rules in Medical and Dental Malpractice

Friday, February 5th, 2010

The State of the Art Rule

This means the doctor has to be up-to-date and in step with modern medicine or dentistry.  For example, we know today that lumpectomy (non-disfiguring removal of individual lumps) and simple mastectomy produce better results in most cases of breast cancer than the disfiguring, disabling radical mastectomy that was popular with breast surgeons for many years.  Today, a doctor who rushes in and does radical breast surgery, without considering conservative treatment, is not up to the state of the art and is guilty of malpractice.

In a New York case, a 19 year-old girl had been treated with radioactive cobalt for Hodgkin’s disease (cancer of the lymph nodes).  The cobalt treatments were successful, and she could have lived a normal life, except for susceptibility to a severe reaction if she were ever given a blood transfusion.  One day the hospital mistakenly gave her a transfusion that killed her.

At just about that time, it was discovered that the transfusion reaction could have been prevented by irradiating the blood (exposing it to radiation).  When her family brought suit, the case hinged upon whether using irradiated blood was the “state of the art” at the time she died.  If it had happened two or three years earlier, it would not have been, and there would not have been any malpractice.  If it had happened two or three years later, when irradiating blood had been written up in all the medical journals, it would have been a clear-cut case of medical malpractice.  The result?  The lawyers finally compromised.

The Rule Is: No one can tell what medical or dental advances will be made next year or even tomorrow.  A doctor only needs to practice according to the state of the art today.   Even if new developments have been reported in the news, he cannot be criticized for failure to utilize them until they are officially recognized and accepted by the medical or dental profession.

The School of Thought Rule

A doctor can only be judged by the standards of his school of thought.  A podiatrist (foot doctor) cannot be held to the standard of an orthopaedic surgeon.  An otolaryngologist (ear, nose, and throat specialist) need not be an expert in dentistry.  The schools of thought are:

Allopathy (M.D.) - Medical Doctors.
Osteopathy (D.O.) - Osteopaths used to be bone manipulators, but most osteopaths now receive the same training as M.D.’s.
Homeopathy - Homeopaths believe in giving very small doses of drugs.  There are few of them practicing.  Most homeopaths have become M.D.’s or D.O.’s.
Podiatry (D.P.M.) - Podiatrists work below the ankle and are recognized experts in foot disorders.
Dentistry (D.D.S. or D.M.D.) - Doctor of Dental Surgery or Doctor of Dental Medicine indicate the degree awarded upon graduation from dental school to become a general dentist.  There is no difference between the two degrees; dentists who have a D.M.D. or D.D.S. have the same education.
Chiropractic (D.C.) - Chiropractors believe that diseases are caused by pressure on the nerve roots and manipulate the spine.  They are licensed to take and read x-rays.
Holistic Healing - Drugless healers who treat the body as a whole and not the disease, usually by diets and nutrition.
Faith Healing - Any one who tells you that you can be cured by faith or belief alone.

What is Medical or Dental Malpractice?

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

A physician or dentist does not undertake to cure you.  He only has to do his best for you according to the standard of care for his community or medical or dental specialty.  If he did not, you have a legitimate complaint.  If he did, you probably do not have a case, no matter how disastrous the results.

Many years ago, an anesthesiologist in Rhode Island had a patient die while under anesthesia.  The doctor admitted that it would not have happened if he had learned up-to-date techniques used by anesthetists in Boston, which was only 40 miles away.  But, he had never gone there to learn and claimed that his outmoded and dangerous techniques were the same as those used by other doctors in the same small city, and the court believed him.

That excuse would not work today.  With modern education and travel facilities, more and more states have recognized that a small-town physician or dentist has plenty of opportunity to attend meetings and take courses to keep abreast of new developments in medicine or dentistry.   In most states, it is no longer a defense for the doctor to claim that he met the local standard, especially if it is a low standard.

In 1929 the American Dental Association began to establish dental board certification for dentists who wished to specialize.  These doctors spend two or more years in advanced training and then must pass examinations administered by a specialty board recognized by the American Dental Association.  Since the training, exams, and standards of practice for Board Certified dental specialists are the same everywhere in the country, they can be judged by a national standard.

In the 1930’s, the American Specialty Boards were established to insure that a physician, who claimed to be a medical specialist, was really competent.  To be Board Certified as competent in a specialty, a doctor has to spend years training in a hospital and pass rigorous exams.  Here, too, since the training, exams, and standards of practice for Board Certified medical specialists are the same everywhere in the country, they can be judged by a national standard.

Sometimes Board Certified specialists will try to defeat medical malpractice cases by claiming they are only local doctors.  A heart surgeon in California claimed that he practiced according to a lower standard when he operated in San Bernardino than when he operated in a university hospital in Los Angeles.  Unusually, that does not work.

The Standard of Care

There are several ways you can judge whether or not a physician or dentist lived up to the standard of care, or whether he has indeed committed malpractice.  In other words, whether the bad result that was devastating for you and your family was justified, or whether the doctor was really to blame.

The Average or Reasonably-Competent Practitioner Rule

A physician or dentist does not have to be the best in the country or even in the top 50%.  If all the doctors in the U.S. were rated on a scale from 1 to 10 and the average was 5, half would be above 5 and half below.  Does that mean that all the doctors who fall below the 5 average should be considered incompetent?  No.  As the U.S. Supreme Court once put it, if 51% of the doctors in the U.S. do things in a certain way, it does not mean that the other 49% are automatically guilty of malpractice.  The average is what is considered as generally accepted by the profession.  All a doctor has to show is that he acted with reasonable skill or as most of his colleagues would have acted.

     
Download our Free Medical & Dental Abbreviations Glossary