| |
Posts Tagged ‘medical malpractice’
Wednesday, January 19th, 2011
1. You should be prepared to show that you suffered a genuine emotional upset.
You should be seen by a psychiatrist or psychologist, who can confirm that you are not faking. The doctor should order a complete medical work-up, in addition to the psychological consultation. Otherwise, the defense lawyer may convince the jury you are faking, or your condition is due to some other cause.
2. You must show that it was more than a temporary upset.
You should maintain contact with your doctor or psychiatrist, while your case is in progress, especially if you continue to feel the emotional effects of your insult or injury. If you are actually under treatment by a psychiatrist, your case is stronger. Your testimony that you have had psychological problems, since your injury, is not nearly as convincing to a jury as your treating physician’s testimony that you have required ongoing care.
3. You must show that it had an adverse effect on your life.
You should keep a diary of your problems and relations with others. This helps to document the adverse changes that have occurred in your family, social, and business relationships. Letters, documents, or written comments about your condition are also helpful to your lawyer; however, they should be spontaneous. You should never solicit them from other people. The courts will not admit written evidence, which has been prepared in anticipation of litigation. In other words, the judge probably will not let your lawyer show the jury a document that has been written at your request because of the chance that it is phony or misleading.
A California woman sued a plastic surgeon, because he located her umbilicus (belly button) an inch to one side, while removing fat from her abdomen. The jury gave her an award for a little displacement of her belly button. She won because she first established malpractice by bringing in a professor of Plastic Surgery as her medical expert witness. But, she also brought in a psychiatrist, who testified the plaintiff was so upset by bad results of the surgery that she had been under his care since it happened, and her career, marriage, and social life had suffered.
4. You have to establish that confidential information was leaked.
A medical malpractice case is not a criminal case, so you do not have to prove exactly who did it or how it was done, although it helps if you can produce a reliable witness, who heard the doctor talking openly about your condition. But, it is not absolutely necessary. The fact that confidential information, only the doctor heard from you in the privacy of his office, has become public knowledge is enough in some states.
A celebrity was in a New York hospital with a heart condition. Some reporters have contacts inside hospitals and pay hospital employees for information about famous patients. Every morning the New York newspapers reported on what had happened to the celebrity in the hospital. His cardiologist said he first learned the results of his patient’s ECG (electrocardiogram) when he read it in the morning paper. The celebrity sued the hospital for invasion of privacy and won.
Tags: adverse effect, confidential information, emotional damages, invasion of privacy, malpractice, medical expert witness, medical malpractice, psychological problems Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Thursday, January 6th, 2011
When you go to the doctor, you have the right to expect him, and his employees, to keep information about you confidential. If he leaks information about your medical condition, it can damage your business, personal, emotional life, and your relationships and standing in the community.
What if an employee of the doctor, or the hospital, leaks confidential information about you? The employer is supposed to take due precautions to see that his employees respect the confidentiality of what goes on in the doctor’s office, or the hospital, and do not “talk out of school.” They are responsible for their indiscretions, if they do. If your doctor’s secretary tells her husband that you have tuberculosis, and he spreads it around the community, you would sue the doctor.
What if you find out the doctor, or the hospital, took pictures of you, without your consent, while you were undressed, under anesthesia, or in some other embarrassing situation and have shown them at a medical meeting or allowed them to be published? What if they allowed some outsider to watch? All those things would be grounds for a lawsuit.
What if the doctor, or his employee, puts out a story that you have a disease that would expose you to discrimination, ridicule, or contempt in your community? That is known as defamation, and the doctor really has no defense. He is responsible, and you may not even have to show you suffered any actual damages. Like the New Jersey woman with breast cancer, your justifiable apprehension of repercussions is enough to justify an award or settlement.
Outrageous Conduct: Earlier in the blog, it was noted that mere bad manners and crude language do not constitute malpractice, and generally they do not. Probably the most common cause of unsuccessful lawsuits is resentment at unfriendly or unfeeling actions by doctors or nurses. But, there is an exception. If the conduct of the doctor or hospital employee is so outrageous or offensive by normal standards, that it seriously disturbs your peace of mind, and is directed at you or a close relative, you may have grounds for a lawsuit.
The Rule Is: What constitutes outrageous behavior depends on the individuals involved in each particular case. However, there is one requirement you must meet. The words or actions must have been deliberate and intentional.
Tags: defamation, invasion of privacy, medical malpractice, outrageous conduct, slander Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Thursday, November 11th, 2010
Nothing in medical malpractice is so misunderstood as mental distress and psychological injuries. We see newspaper accounts of people who have received awards for pain and suffering or emotional distress. A sympathetic jury has decided to compensate someone for their terrible and frightening ordeal, in addition to their financial loss. It is true that mental distress can bring awards, but it can also be very difficult to prove. Judges can set aside what they consider to be excessive awards for claims of mental suffering with no reasonable basis, and some states have put limits on the amounts juries can give for “pain and suffering.”
So, how do you receive adequate compensation for your pain and suffering? Just saying that you are suffering and very upset, or shedding a few tears, will not get you very far. You have to show that: you required psychiatric treatment, you lost your job, your marriage fell apart, or you suffered some other demonstrable loss.
The Rule Is: You have to show that you actually did receive a shock that would have profoundly disturbed the average juror, and you suffered some real disturbance in your personal, emotional, or business life.
Types of Emotional Distress
Personal Suffering: Because of a doctor’s malpractice, you have to undergo painful surgery or will spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair. You hurt every time you move or maybe you cannot move at all. That is usually self evident and easy to prove.
Disfigurement: This ranks with physical pain in its appeal to juries, provided it was due to a doctor’s negligence and not some other cause. But, if you have been disfigured by an accident or a disease like cancer, you will not get much sympathy, if you sue the doctor, who did his best to correct it. To make a strong case, you have to show two things:
1. You looked normal before his treatment, and your disfigurement was entirely due to the doctor’s negligence.
2. It is permanent and cannot be completely repaired by existing surgical techniques.
Fear and Apprehension: This comes from knowing that you are in danger of death or disability because of the malpractice. A New Jersey gynecologist failed to diagnose a woman’s breast cancer in its early stages, when the chance for cure was good. When the cancer was removed by another surgeon two years later, the chance of a fatal recurrence was much greater because of the delay. The court ruled that the woman did not have to show the cancer had come back as a result of the delay or that she had actually suffered any physical harm. The court said her justifiable fear of a fatal recurrence, and the increased chance of such an outcome, justified the award against the gynecologist.
Emotional Shock: This comes from seeing someone near and dear to you seriously injured or killed. If you witness malpractice, which results in the death or serious injury of a member of your immediate family, the shock you suffer may justify a claim. In most states, you must actually witness the event, although some states will let you file a claim if you can show a genuine, emotional upset just from hearing the news. Your lawyer will have to advise you as to the exact law in your state.
Tags: disfigurement, emotional shock, fear and apprehension, medical malpractice, mental distress, personal suffering, psychological injuries Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Monday, October 18th, 2010
Let’s say you have a condition that has not bothered you for a long time but flares up due to malpractice. For example, you have an old back injury, which has finally quieted down after giving you trouble for many years. While you are in the hospital for another condition, you are allowed to fall off an examining table. Subsequently, your back condition flares up again. Can the hospital claim that it was not responsible, because you already had a bad back? The answer is no. There is an old legal rule that the wrongdoer takes his victim as he finds him.
Imagine that somebody hits you lightly on the head, just a bump that would not injure a normal person. But, you have a hole in your skull from an old injury and suffer a serious brain injury with permanent disability. Can your attacker get away with it by pleading that he did not know you were abnormal and that what he did would not have hurt a normal person? No, he cannot. There actually was such a case, and it gave rise to the legal theory know as the Thin-Skulled Plaintiff.
Anything that causes a quiescent condition to flare up, or a chronic condition to become worse, is considered exactly the same as an original injury. The fact that the doctor did not know does not excuse him.
It is important for you to realize that this applies only to medical malpractice and dental malpractice. If a doctor gives you some treatment, which causes you to have a bad reaction, without committing any malpractice, he is not to blame unless he knew beforehand you were likely to have the reaction. For example, if a doctor gives you penicillin, and you have an allergic reaction, that is your fault. If he gives you penicillin when he knows, or should have known, you are allergic, that is his fault.
You can set down three rules for a flare up of a preexisting condition or an unusual reaction:
1. If it is because of medical malpractice or dental malpractice, the doctor is responsible.
2. If there is no malpractice, and the doctor did not know about your particular problem, he is not liable.
3. If there is no malpractice, but the doctor knew, or should have known, about your special condition and did something that caused it to flare up or become worse, he is liable.
Tags: back injury, brain injury, dental malpractice, malpractice, medical malpractice, preexisting condition, quiescent condition, thin-skulled plaintiff, unusual reaction Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Thursday, September 30th, 2010
The courts in each state decide how much probability you have to show in order for the judge to let the jury decide your medical malpractice or dental malpractice case. In some states, you have to show that it was more likely than not (better than a 50% chance) that you would have gotten a different result. Other states only require you to show the malpractice was a substantial factor in producing the bad result and leave it up to the judge to decide what a substantial factor is in each case. In some states, you only have to show there was a remote possibility of a better result in order to get to the jury. A Texas lady won a case when she showed that she suffered anxiety because of a remote possibility of cancer resulting from a burn, and a Virginia man won a verdict for failure to diagnose his cancer of the esophagus, even though his chance of survival with the best treatment was only 9%.
The Rule Is: Your medical expert witness or dental expert witness should be able to testify that it is more likely than not (better than 50%) you would have received a better result, if you had not been the victim of malpractice. But, the Loss-of-Chance Theory only applies to the effects of malpractice and does not relieve you of the obligation of showing that the doctor committed a departure from good and accepted practice.
How Does This Affect Your Award?
While the possibility that your injury was due to other factors probably cannot be used as a defense by the doctor, it can be used in determining the amount of your award. For example, if the Virginia jury had decided the patient with cancer of the esophagus should get $100,000.00, the award would have been reduced to 9% or $9,000.00. If the court had decided the lady with breast cancer had only a 50% chance of success with early treatment, she would have received 50% of the award. Theoretically, the court will adjust the amount of the award in proportion to the probable effect of the malpractice on your injury.
In real life, it is rare for a jury to reduce the amount of its award much if the doctor was only 50% or 60% liable. As already explained, many courts and jurors see malpractice awards as Loss Allocation, which is another way of saying that they use whatever funds available to help people, who have been injured or suffered a serious loss through a physician’s or a dentist’s carelessness or neglect.
Tags: dental expert witness, dental malpractice case, loss allocation, loss of chance theory, medical expert witness, medical malpractice, remote possibility, substantial factor rule, victim of malpractice Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Monday, August 23rd, 2010
If you are going to file a medical malpractice lawsuit or a dental malpractice lawsuit, you have to show that you were injured. Otherwise, the court cannot give you anything, no matter what the doctor did to you. The question is whether you have to prove that what happened was the doctor’s fault, beyond a reasonable doubt, and rule out all other possibilities.
Let us assume you had a baby in a hospital and the infant suffered a subdural (brain) hemorrhage. The hemorrhage clears up, but as your child grows, he or she develops cerebral palsy, which you learn may have been due to rough handling and improper use of obstetrical forceps during delivery. You have reason to believe the same injuries that caused the subdural hemorrhage also caused your child’s cerebral palsy. When you file your lawsuit, the doctors and the hospital admit that it was a difficult delivery, and the baby’s head was damaged. But, they also say that cerebral palsy has many causes, and challenge you to rule out other possible diseases or injuries. That would be almost impossible. How would you deal with it?
Or, your husband has severe chest pain and goes to the hospital where they do not take an ECG (electrocardiogram), or any lab tests, and send him home with medications. He later dies of a heart attack. The hospital says, “It was a massive heart attack, and he probably would have died anyway, even if he had been in the ICU (intensive care unit).” How do you answer that?
Or, you had a spinal operation for a bad back. Afterward, you developed a wound infection and meningitis, which left you paralyzed and brain damaged. When asked how this could happen in a modern hospital, under sterile techniques and infection control, the doctor showed your family a booklet published by the American College of Surgeons, stating that 7% of surgical wounds become infected. The booklet attributes the infections to contamination by the patient’s own germs and does not mention medical malpractice as a possible cause. He told the family that it was just your bad luck to be one of the 7%, and your infection was not anyone’s fault. You probably brought the germ into the hospital with you. True or false?
A woman goes to a doctor’s office several times over a period of months, complaining of a lump in her breast. The doctor does not do any diagnostic tests and tells her not to worry. Two years later, she goes to another doctor who discovers she has breast cancer, and it is inoperable. Cancer is an insidious disease, and no one can say for sure that it will not spread, even if treated aggressively in its very earliest stages. So, the doctor says, “How can you prove that she could have been cured two years ago?” You can’t. Not even the best cancer specialist can. You can give statistics and percentages, but no one can say for sure that that particular case could have been cured. So, what do you do?
Are these explanations valid defenses? Do they destroy your case? Do you have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the doctor’s malpractice was the only cause of your injuries?
The Old “But For” Rule
In the past, medical malpractice cases and dental malpractice cases came under what lawyers call the But For Rule, which said the doctor was only liable if the bad result would not have occurred, but for his negligence. In simple terms, that meant the plaintiff had to rule out all other possible causes of the injury and show the bad result was 100% the doctor’s fault. That was often impossible, except for the most flagrant malpractice. In all the cases listed above, it would have been easy for the doctor to slip off the hook, by raising doubts and questions and demanding that the patient perform the impossible task of disproving all other possible causes.
Medicine and Dentistry are complex, and it is not often that you can nail anything down with 100% certainty or say that any single thing caused a good or bad result, especially with modern medicine and dentistry where different doctors and hospital personnel may be giving a patient several different treatments at the same time. Who is to say just who was responsible for what? Under that doctrine, all a doctor had to do was raise doubts and claim that some other person was partly responsible for the bad result, or that some other disease might have caused the injury, or that the outcome might have been the same, even if he had not committed malpractice and had done everything right, and he was home free.
We will discuss the new Substantial Factor Test in our next blog post.
Tags: brain damaged, breast cancer, but for rule, cerebral palsy, dental malpractice, dental malpractice lawsuit, heart attack, medical malpractice, medical malpractice lawsuit, meningitis, subdural hemorrhage, substantial factor test, wound infection Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Wednesday, July 7th, 2010
Fraud and deceit by physicians and dentists are serious words. They mean the doctor either defrauded you or deliberately deceived you. There are usually four ways in which a doctor can be guilty of these unethical actions.
First, the doctor intentionally misleads you as to the nature of your condition and what the treatment involves.
A North Carolina surgeon told a patient that a heart operation held no risk. The patient was not yet 40 years old, the operation was not really necessary, and he could have lived for many years without it. But, since the doctor had assured him there was not any risk, he decided to go ahead with it, just to be on the safe side. After the operation, the patient developed an air bubble to the brain and died.
Postoperatively, the patient’s family found out the operation was considered dangerous by heart surgeon, and as many as 10% of the people who have it die. Even though the doctor had performed the operation correctly and had not committed malpractice, he had willfully concealed the dangers of the operation to get the patient to agree to the surgery. The family sued, charging that the doctor had deliberately deceived the patient about the risks, and he did it for the money. The jury thought so, too.
Second, the doctor intentionally misleads you as to what went wrong with a treatment and gives you a false story to keep you from suing him, until the statute of limitations (time limit) runs out.
Third, the doctor alters or destroys his office records, or the hospital records, in order to conceal the truth from your lawyer and the jury. This is known as spoliation of evidence and is the most serious of all.
In a New York case, a woman was sent home from the hospital with pneumonia and she died. When the family’s lawyer obtained the hospital chart, all the reports of laboratory tests were normal. Since that did not square with the patient’s condition, the lawyer obtained a court order to see the original records in the hospital laboratory. It turned out that when the doctor was notified he was being sued for medical malpractice, he went to the hospital and removed the original laboratory report slips that showed his patient had a raging infection. He substituted forged reports that showed a normal white blood count when he sent her home. When that was brought out at trial, the jury not only gave the victim’s family an award for compensatory damages but added an amount for punitive damages, to punish the doctor for attempting to deceive the court.
Since reports of surgical operations and discharge summaries are very important, most hospitals require doctors to dictate the report of an operation before he leaves the surgical suite and the discharge summary within 48 hours after his patient is discharged from the hospital. The dates these reports are dictated and transcribed are indicated by a notation in the lower, left corner that read like this: D: 01/22/09, T: 01/24/09.
In a New Jersey case, a team of neurosurgeons botched a major brain operation, and the patient died. When the patient’s family filed a lawsuit for medical malpractice, and their lawyer obtained the medical records from the hospital, he discovered the report of the operation and the discharge summary had been dictated and typed a year after the patient died and two months after the lawsuit had been filed. Under hospital policy, the doctors would have been suspended and would not have been able to admit patients to the hospital, if the chart had not been completed. But, they had been admitting patients all along, since the patient died, so it was obvious they had destroyed their original reports and substituted falsified reports. The secretary was honest and noted the correct dates she typed the revisions and exposed the doctors’ scheme to deceive the court. The patient’s family won at trial.
Not all cases of alteration of medical records and spoliation of evidence are as easily detected as in this New Jersey case. Sometimes it requires an Authenticator of Disputed Documents (handwriting expert) to prove it to the satisfaction of the court. In a Virginia case, the authenticator found that the doctor had used a pen that was not even manufacturer until after the dates on his handwritten note. If you can show medical records have been altered or destroyed, it puts you in a strong position.
Fourth, a doctor offers to help you with your medical malpractice case or dental malpractice case or promises to be your expert witness. At the last minute, he fails to appear to testify or changes his opinion on the witness stand.
A Utah lawyer was suing an anesthesiologist for medical malpractice, which resulted in the death of a patient during surgery. The surgeon, who had performed the operation was critical of the anesthesiologist and offered to act as the lawyer’s medical expert witness. The lawyer did not bother to look for another expert or obtain any other opinion. The surgeon was also helpful in preparing an airtight case against the anesthesiologist, and there was never any question that the surgeon was responsible, too.
Three weeks before the case was due to go to trial, the surgeon announced that he would not be able to act as the expert witness “for personal reasons.” When the lawyer went to an independent expert, who was located in another city, he was astonished to learn that the surgeon, who had been so helpful, was the one who had committed malpractice and should have been sued. The lawyer did not have a case at all against the anesthesiologist. The surgeon had led the lawyer along until it was too late to sue him. When confronted, the surgeon admitted he never had any intention of testifying. It was too late to find a substitute expert, and the case was lost.
Tags: alteration of medical records, Authentication of Disputed Documents, compensatory damages, deceit, dental malpractice, dental malpractice case, expert witness, fraud, medical expert witness, medical malpractice, medical malpractice case, punitive damages, spoliation of evidence, statute of limitations Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
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.
Tags: arbitration, dental malpractice, dental malpractice cases, insurance release, medical malpractice, release, victim of medical malpractice Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
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.
Tags: assumption of the risk, dental malpractice, dental malpractice case, medical malpractice, reasonable person Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
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.
Tags: comparative negligence, contributory negligence, dental malpractice, dental malpractice cases, malpractice, medical malpractice Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
|
|
| |
|
|
|