An unhappy patient does not automatically have the right to file a complaint, and to prepare for a medical malpractice lawsuit, as per personal injury lawyer in Highland.
Situations that would allow the affected patient to initiate a medical malpractice lawsuit
These are situations where a quantifiable damage to a patient has resulted from malpractice by a physician.
—Treatment used leads to complications
—Doctor has displayed egregious conduct, such as leaving a piece of equipment in the body of a surgical patient, or operating on the wrong body part.
—Failure to tell patient about plans for a scheduled procedure
—Failure to provide the patient with the correct result from a completed test
—Failure to carry out an essential test
—A surgeon’s failure to keep a close eye on the tasks performed by the anesthetist.
Doctors that are ready to take a risk are more likely to become accused of malpractice.
An expert would share with the jury facts about what another physician would do, if he/she had an equal measure of training, and was placed in a similar situation.
A good expert should be able to explain the purpose behind any suggested action, or any comment about the absence of a need for a specific action.
—If a jury could not understand what a given expert has said, the jurists might elect to ignore the expert’s testimony
—Comments from an adjuster do not carry as much weight as testimony from an expert witness
The jurists’ repeated interactions with doctors could have a greater influence on their thinking than any testimony from an expert
A typical juror has sought a doctor’s help on several occasions. As a result, he or she tends to trust doctors.
That type of thinking makes it hard for any juror to hit the defendant with a guilty verdict.
As a result, few plaintiffs manage to win a victory in a medical malpractice case.
Sometimes an adjuster pretends to be an expert
That could happen during negotiations, if the claimant were the victim of a chronic health condition.
The adjuster might suggest that the victim/claimant should have been using some type of protective gear.
Such an action would represent a rejection of an accepted legal theory: The defendant must deal with the consequences, after his or her actions have managed to damage the claimant or plaintiff’s property or person. Defendants cannot seek leniency, if they have aggravated an existing injury.
An insurance company could seek leniency by trying to convince a victim that he or she should have been using some type of protective device at the time of the accident. That sort of effort would not be allowed in court, but it might be tried during the course of the pre-settlement negotiations.