Medical Malpractice Case Summary

A health care provider must understand many aspects of statutory duty. Duty is “a legal obligation imposed on one to conform to a recognized standard of care to safe guard the rights of others”. The standard of care is usually related to medical malpractice cases. Standard of care is defined as “the caution and prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances or by appropriate authority for such situations”. This is mainly of importance because all physicians are expected to perform within the guidelines of this duty, and this standard or care changes depending on the circumstances. “Once the duty has been established, the plaintiff must show that it was breached by presenting evidence of the facts of the case and testimony from expert witnesses regarding whether the standard was met”(Showalter, 2014 p 139). Negligence results in the failure to meet this standard of care, and the jury usually decides if the defendant is guilty of committing a negligent act. Causation is an aspect of negligence. The defendant could be held liable for negligence if the act was considered to be foreseeable, and if the injury occurred from a breach of duty.

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

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.

There are four elements to tort law: duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury. To claim damages, there must be a breach in the duty of the defendant

Medical malpractice claims have risen dramatically over the past 40 years alongside the financial claim awards (Kessler, 2011). Currently, America’s medical tort system is regulated and enforced primarily by the states (“Medical Tort System,” 2016). The main focus of tort law is to preserve the peace between two parties, to determine fault and discourage wrong doing (Pozgar, 2016). Most physicians today carry medical malpractice insurance to protect themselves from the high defense costs of claims and potential financial awards (Kessler, 2011). As the number of medical claims increase and jury awarded punitive damage skyrocket, medical malpractice insurance premiums have also risen dramatically (Kessler, 2011). Malpractice insurance

In the healthcare field, one of the rudimentary rules first learned is maleficent, “to do no harm.” However, medical malpractice seems to be skyrocketing throughout the years. In 2010, according to the American Medical Association (AMA), the United States was experiencing its third full blown medicine liability crisis with many physicians’ practices becoming limited due to increasing malpractice costs (Ellington, 2010). According to Sage (2012), United States has the most expensive healthcare system in the world and a high rate of litigation. Under the healthcare delivery system, it is viewed as far from perfect and the primary cause for high unjustified medical spending. As well as, the largest financial damages awarded to successful plaintiffs

The rising price of health care and the amount of medical malpractice claims being filed sparked a start to this controversial topic. The average price of medical care has gone up roughly 20 percent between the late ‘80s and the early 2000s (The risk authority, 2014). And the amount of medical malpractice claims in the same twenty years has arisen from one person filing a claim to five people filing the same claim, in a small ratio (Doyle, n.d.). The rising cost of medical expenses is feeding off of the increase in the amount of these cases filed every year. There are other reasons for the medical cost to rise such as the new expensive treatments and medications. But these new innovations are also raising the amount medical malpractice

The nurse showed negligence while performing the procedure. She/he owed a duty of care to the patient. The nurse was incompetent and continued to perform a procedure he/she was not knowledgeable. Duty is explained as “the person charged with negligence owed a duty of care to the accuser.” (P130 Judson) The patient demonstrated that burden in a court of

Medical malpractice is a serious issue that has been occurring since the middle of the nineteenth

One important professional legal issue is medical negligence, or medical malpractice. Medical negligence occurs when a provider performs his or her job in such a way that deviates from the accepted medical practice standard (Goguen, n.d.). Medical negligence can be tested by a three-part test in which the following happens: a) a duty of care is owed to a person, b) a breach of duty is established, and c) harm has been caused to the patient because of the breach (Goguen, n.d.). Medical negligence can turn into medical malpractice when health care providers cause injury to the patient or worsen the patient’s clinical condition (Goguen, n.d.).

Therefore, the claimant had to argue that, on the balance of probabilities, the negligence of the defendant was a result of the injury to establish causation. In this case, the injury is the loss of chance of recovery. The claimant argued inter alia, that even though he was deprived of his recovery and could not recover damages, he ought to recover for the loss of chance of recovery due to the negligence on the part of the defendant.

In a negligent tort claim the plaintiff must prove four elements to have a successful claim. The first element is duty, a plaintiff must prove that a duty of care was owed by the the defendant (Lau & Johnson, 2011). The second element is that the defendant breached that duty. The third element is causation. The plaintiff must also prove an actual connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting harm. A casual causation, in which case the defendants actions directly caused the injury, or a proximate causation is one in which the defendant 's actions were the proximate cause of the plaintiff 's injury. Deciding if there is proximate cause can be more difficult to determine, as it must be concluded that the injury was foreseeable. If the injury was not foreseeable than proximate cause does not exist. Lastly, the fourth element of a negligent tort claim is damages or recognizable injuries. The injury must be actual, real and not imaginary but can be physical, emotional, monetary or

Based on the current law in California, a person who received any injury or harm while receiving care may for medical malpractice. In the case of medical, most of the cases doctors are the ones who are sued by the injured persons; however, in order to sue a doctor for medical malpractice, the person suing must have evidence that the injury was the direct result of medical negligence, the failure to perform one’s duty in medical practice (“Proposition

What is the relationship between Breach of Duty and Standard of Care? From Business Law, Breach of duty requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant did not act as a reasonable person would have acted and Standard of Care is considered a general rule of thumb, thus, negligence law expects that everyone must act as a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would have acted in similar circumstances. Mallor, J., Barnes, A. J., Bowers, L. T., Langvardt. Business Law p227, 16th Edition. Retrieved 11/20/16. In breach of duty and standard of care the court needs to find that the person is or is not a reasonable person to determine if the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care. If the plaintiff was at risk of harm due to the defendants actions the courts can force the defendant to pay

The main idea of the law of negligence is to ensure that people exercise reasonable care when they act by measuring the potential harm that may foreseeably cause harm to other people. Negligence is the principal trigger for liability to ascend in matters that deal with the loss of property of personal injury. Therefore, a person cannot be liable for something unless they have been found negligent or have contributed to the loss of property or injury to the plaintiff (Stuhmcke, 2005). There is more to