Clinical Negligence Claims

“Medical malpractice occurs when a hospital, doctor or other health care professional, through a negligent act or omission, causes an injury to a patient. The negligence might be the result of errors in diagnosis, treatment, aftercare or health management.” (Admin) One of the most common type of claims that pharmacies face are negligence claims. Negligence is one of the categories that falls under the area of law called Torts. In the Hundley v Rite Aid case, a tort was filed for injuries that were sustained by Gabrielle Hundley after she took medication from an incorrectly filed prescription. The case involved a jury trial verdict involving Gabrielle Hundley, a minor child, against Howard Jones, the pharmacist, and the Rite

Medical malpractice lawsuits are an extremely serious topic and have affected numerous patients, doctors, and hospitals across the country. Medical malpractice is defined as “improper, unskilled or negligent treatment of a patient by a physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional” (Medical malpractice, n.d.). If a doctor acts negligent and causes harm to a patient, malpractice lawsuits arise. Negligence is the concept of the liability concerning claims of medical malpractice, making this type of litigation part of tort law. Tort law provides that one person may litigate negligence to recover damages for personal injury. Negligence laws are designed to deter careless behavior and also to

When assessing whether a no fault regime is better than a negligence rule in dealing with the causes and consequences of medical error, it would seem prudent to first understand the meaning of the term “medical error”. Liang defines medical error as ‘a mistake, inadvertent occurrence, or unintended event in health-care delivery which may, or may not, result in patient injury’ (2000, p.542). The consequence of these errors (or adverse events) that lead to patient injury, and the method by which we determine and administer compensation for such injuries, has been the source of heated debate amongst scholars in recent

Charleston Community Memorial Hospital proved a corporate negligence doctrine in the case (Pozgar, 2013). The court found a jury could reasonably find negligence due to the fact that staff did not test for circulation as often as needed, it was concluded that skilled nurses would have been aware of circulation problems, informing attending staff promptly (Law School Case Briefs,2013). There was no argument that the defendant, the hospital in this case, failed to review physicians work, or require a consultation. A jury found that this failure was within reason to assume a negligent act was performed, or not performed in this case (Law School Case Briefs,2013). A person goes to a hospital and within reason expects the hospital to treat them (Pozgar, 2013). There is a legitimate basis in this case to hold the hospital vicariously responsible for torts of its employed staff (Law School Case Briefs,2013). In Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital, the jury found negligence by both the doctor and the nursing staff, this was supported with evidence during the trial (Law School Case

A second issue is malpractice. Malpractice issues are always present in an unstable environment where patients will seek to remedy an incident if they feel they have been harmed (Hamric, 2009). It is important to always act in a reasonable way as a health care clinician but unfortunately there are always those who are negligent in their actions as practitioners.

Healthcare providers should not be exempt from allegations of committing intentional torts. “The classic intentional tort in medical practice is forcing unwanted medical care on a patient ("Intentional Torts," n.d.).” Intentional torts can meet the requirements for civil and criminal action due to the nature in which the act was accomplished, and its qualified deliberate intent. To successfully sue another person for an intentional tort, intent, acting, and actual cause all have to be present (Legal Dictionary, n.d.).

With regard to Ms. Green’s claims against O’Brien, it is apparent that Ms. Green was O’Brien’s client, and that O’Brien owed Ms. Green a duty. Should this case proceed to trial we do not anticipate that we would argue to a jury that O’Brien did not neglect this duty. Rather, there are serious questions as to whether “the negligence resulted in and was the proximate cause of loss to the client.” Kendall v. Rogers, 181 Md. 606, 611-12 (1943). Indeed, the estate will have to demonstrate that Ms. Green would have prevailed in proving that one or both health care provider defendants committed medical negligence that caused her to fall into the diabetic coma.

Medical malpractice, the negligence of a health professional in diagnosing, treating, and or caring for a patient, is a specific tort law under the negligence torts. In the medical field, the tort reform has affected many people including doctors, lawyers, insurance company owners and workers, patients, and including other citizens. While large corporations, doctors, and other defendants are benefitting from caps on damages, that is limiting the amount of money that can be granted in court, plaintiffs, lawyers, and citizens are affected differently. Doctor Sage stated in an interview that he has, “never felt that caps on damages had a major effect on patients one way or the other” (“Could Malpractice”). This remark makes those injured question about

Tort reform has intense arguments to both sides and creates a myriad of concerns. On one side of the tort reform movement, defendants such as corporations and medical professionals want limits on the damages awarded to the plaintiff. The benefit of tort reform for defendant is the financial savings. However, a cap placed on medical malpractice cases and other cases that are of negligence would standardize the monetary compensation regardless of the damage. In my opinion, Medical malpractice tort reform is a gray area, for each breach of the standard of care involves a different story and person, therefore the damages vary and should be evaluated fairly. In this essay, both sides of the argument are discussed, with a focus on medical malpractice tort reform.

This proceeding before a Medical Review Panel, pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. §§ 40:1299.41, et seq., is brought by Jimmy Martinez against multiple health care providers, including Dr. Mark Kappelman, a qualified health care provider entitled to have the claim filed against him reviewed by this Panel. The claims made against Dr. Kappelman are mere allegations without support and proof. In a medical malpractice case the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish that Dr. Mark Kappelman’s actions in this matter fell below the standard of care required of similar health care providers. The claimant also bears the burden of proving whether any such alleged act or acts of negligence caused any injuries. It is the duty of the

Our text defines a tort as “a civil wrong” and negligence as “a tort, a civil or personal wrong” (Pozgar, 2012). Negligence as it is related to healthcare is an unintentional commission or omission of an act that a reasonably prudent person or organization would or would not do under normal circumstances. Not following a recognized standard of care could be considered negligence. The case I have chosen to study is one from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City Maryland and is that of Enso Martinez a minor by and through his parent (Rebecca Fielding) vs The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore Maryland July 2013. I would describe this as a landmark, “David vs Goliath” case

Furthermore, as discussed in chapter 3 there is inconsistent application of the legal rules to determine the liability of the medical professional. Therefore, as previously discussed solicitors are usually hesitant to pursue clinical negligence claims by the means of SFA. With SFA being the only means for claimants to afford to pursue clinical negligence claims the removal of civil legal aid for clinical negligence claims has meant that many claimants are unable to access the necessary legal representation and in turn access courts for their civil rights to be determined. Consequently, many claimants are not compensated for medical injuries inflicted due to the negligence of the medical professional, thus the current system is failing to meet its primary aim. More importantly, the practical difficulties in accessing and in turn using the civil justice system for clinical negligence claims has meant that the Scottish Government is failing to meet its obligation under Article 6 and 8 of the

When considering the legalities of this scenario, negligence, vicarious liability, and physician- patient relationship are a few components that affect the outcome of a lawsuit. The amount of legal torts that were violated in this case was enough to cause disputes between patients and healthcare staff. Negligence is a familiar tort that occurs much more than it needs too. Unfortunately in this case, vicarious liability and patient-physician relationship are two considerations that influence this case as well.

Below is the memorandum for the negligence action regarding our client, Mr. Ragnarr Loobrok. To succeed in a claim of negligence, it must be proven that, on the balance of probabilities, that a duty of care was owed by the State of Victoria to prevent him from getting arrested once his bail conditions had been formally changed.

In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.