Pros And Cons Of Medical Negligence

What is malpractice? The given definition is improper, illegal, or negligent professional activity or treatment, especially by a medical practitioner, lawyer, or public official. These cases are occurring more all over the state than they should be due to human era. The people at the hands of doctors are being let down as well as left with disfiguration or even death. These cases are leaving people to question their surgeons as well as the nurses attending with them.

The plaintiff in Ard v. East Jefferson General Hospital, stated on 20 May, she had rang the nurses station to inform the nursing staff that her husband was experiencing symptoms of nausea, pain, and shortness of breathe. After ringing the call button for several times her spouse received his medication. Mrs. Ard noticed that her husband continued to have difficulty breathing and ringing from side to side, the patient spouse rang the nursing station for approximately an hour and twenty-five minutes until the defendant (Ms. Florscheim) enter the room and initiated a code blue, which Mr. Ard didn’t recover. The expert witness testified that the defendant failed to provide the standard of care concerning the decease and should have read the physician’s progress notes stating patient is high risk upon assessment and observation. The defendant testified she checked on the patient but no documentation was noted. The defendant expert witness disagrees with breech of duty, which upon cross-examination the expert witness agrees with the breech of duty. The district judge, upon judgment, the defendant failed to provide the standard of care (Pozgar, 2012, p. 215-216) and award the plaintiff for damages from $50,000 to $150,000 (Pozgar, 2012, p. 242).

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

Broadly speaking, malpractice is the failure of a medical professional to fulfill his or her obligation to treat you properly. Unlike other personal injury claims, the juries and judges in malpractice cases must look at the standards set for reasonable medical care. While personal injury cases are based on the responsibilities of a normal person, malpractice cases are based on the responsibilities of a healthcare professional.

Negligence is the failure to do something. Many medical cases are filed as medical malpractice suits, “medical malpractice is professional misconduct. Malpractice differs from negligence because it is performed by a license medical professional” (Flight 2). The case of Horton V. Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center can be used as a primary example where negligence, “failure to take reasonable precautions to protect others from the risk of harm” (Flight 33), is visible.

According to APES 110, “to maintain professional knowledge and skill at the level required to ensure that a client or employer receives competent Professional Services based on current developments in practice, legislation and techniques and act diligently and in accordance with applicable technical and professional standards” is the definition of professional competence and due care. Management did not exercise adequate due care for their players when faced with these conditions. The informal nature of Dr Stephen Dank’s employment intensified this negligence as he was passed the duty of care of these players although he did not hold accountable to the club. Therefore those who involved Dr Stephen Dank bypassed the Human Resources procedures showing complete disregarded of the due care principle.

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

According to Attorney.com, Ohio malpractice law defines medical malpractice as when a medical professional, such as a doctor or a nurse, or a medical institution, such as a hospital, injures a patient during the course of a treatment. Furthermore, for this injury to be able to be considered medical malpractice, the doctor's actions must represent a breach, or violation, of the standard of care. A standard of care is defined as the generally accepted practices and procedures that all medical professionals in the area would administer for a patient suffering from a particular ailment. This standard of care varies depending on a number of factors, including the patient's general health as well as his or her age.

Medical malpractice, is misconduct that usually involves failing of a physician to follow a standard of care, which results in harm to a patient.

Per Niles (2018), “There are two basic healthcare torts: 1. Negligence, which involves the unintentional omission of an act that would contribute to the positive health of a patient; and 2. Intentional torts; such as assault and battery or invasion of privacy (p. 278).” As stated before, another example of negligence in the health care industry is if a patient were to go see a physician for a checkup and mentions that she feels a lump on the side of her breast and the doctor does not give her the proper test that she needs. A year later the patient is diagnosed with breast cancer and has to surgically remove the breast; now the doctor is held accountable which would be considered failure to diagnose cancer.

In the medical field, the term negligence initially incorporated just the careless wrongs of a doctor. Before, a division existed between a medical caretaker and a doctor. The medical attendant worked inside a substantially more characterized system. As opposed to analyze patients, treat side effects, or endorse pharmaceutical, it was adequate for the medical caretaker to sit tight for and afterward basically actualize a doctor's request. In years past it was practically remarkable for a medical caretaker to condemn a doctor's request.

Medical malpractice happens when a hospital, doctor or other health care professional, perform negligence through their practice and causes an injury to a patient, it may be the result of mistakes in diagnosis, management and after care or health management. (Podgers, 2007)

Negligence happens when a “person’s actions fall below a certain level of care. Negligence can involve doing something carelessly or failing to do something that should have been done.” (Fremgen, 2009, p. 35). In order to prove negligence the plaintiff must present the following elements: 1) duty to care, 2) breach of duty to care, 3) injury and 4) causation (Pozgar, 2012, p. 33). Duty to care is the first element which deals with the care that the defendant (physician) owes the plaintiff (the patient).

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

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.