The Pros And Cons Of Legal Malpractice Case

“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

Another basic requirement of a medical malpractice claim is whether or not the doctor's negligence caused the injury. Many malpractice cases involve patients that were already

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.

In certain situations, a duty of care is owed to another person. For example, a surgeon owes a duty of care to whoever they operate on. The existence of a duty of care is established by the Neighbour Test which was brought in by Lord Aitken after the Donoghue v Stevenson case;

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.

When someone doesn’t live up to their responsibility of exercising care, and that failure leads to another person’s injury or death, the action or lack of action is referred to as negligence. As an example, say someone causes a fatal accident because they were speeding. In this case, the driver who was driving above the speed limit acted negligently, and therefore can be held liable in court for damages caused. The victim’s surviving family members can also file a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that the driver who caused the crash owes them damages associated with that untimely and unnecessary death.

This analysis has taken place in regards to the civil case of Moor v Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd [2014]. This case involves Moor the plaintiff accusing Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd the defendant of breaching their duty of care and simply failing to exercise the standard of care required by law. This case involves a civil wrongdoing. A civil wrong doing is generally a breach of a person 's rights. This generally associates with tort. This case involves a specific component of tort, negligence which exercises the legal right for a plaintiff to seek compensation for the damages caused by another party who were seen as legally liable. The case analysed within this report sees a Mr Christopher Moor sue Liverpool Catholic Club

In Caparo Industries plc v Dickman7, it was determined that courts had to test the duty by “whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable, whether there was a relationship of proximity between claimant and defendant, and whether it is just and reasonable to impose a duty.”8 If so, then a duty of care could arise.

For a plaintiff to triumph a claim of medical malpractice for negligence, four elements must be established. The first element is proving the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. The second is to show that the defendant breached the duty to the plaintiff. The third is to show that the plaintiff was harmed and experienced damages. Finally, the fourth is to show that the plaintiff was harmed by the actions of the defendant (Greenberg, 2009).

Negligence is when someone is failing to do something that a reasonable person would do in a similar situation or, doing something that a reasonable person did not do in a similar situation.

In other words, carelessness or unintentionally commissioned act that a reasonable person would do under the same circumstances. For instance, a patient goes to the emergency room with chest pain, but the doctor fails to diagnose the condition and sends the patient home. As a result, the patient later suffers a massive heart attack. In this example, the doctor did not intent to cause harm, however, he or she did fail to exercise a reasonable level of care to properly make a correct diagnose. Furthermore, it would be very difficult to prove the doctor acted negligently, but injury and cause can be proven in this case. Malpractice and negligence fall under the same umbrella, which makes it synonymous and difficult to comprehend; accordingly, many lawsuits are filed to encompass both

What is negligence? In many states, the term is reserved for malpractice claims against doctors, lawyers, architects and accountants: The concept of professional negligence applies to other professionals such as nurses. As a practical matter, although, this is often a meaningless distinction because malpractice and negligence lawsuits generally contain the same elements and carry the same potential for serious legal penalties. (Calfee, 2010, pg. 34)

Negligence: This is a general category under tort law. It’s when a person or entity fails to act with care that is what we would define as a normal cautionary practice of care. It is being careless.

A malpractice suit can be lodged against an individual doctor, the medical institution, nurses or whoever else may have caused the malpractice.

Negligence is the failure to exercise due care or diligence that a reasonable or prudent man would exercise in similar circumstances. The law of negligence falls under tort law where it involves harm that is caused by carelessness and not intentional harm (Katter, 2002). A tort is a civil wrong that is in the form of a breach of duty, which amounts to legal remedy that is awarded in damages. Tort law rests upon two principles that state that an act or omission by the defendant interferes with the rights of the plaintiff, which in turn causes damages (Trindade, 2007). Secondly, the interference caused by the defendant gives rise to a cause of action for damages that are as near as possible to the plaintiff’s loss. Therefore, negligence can be defined as doing something that a reasonable man would not have done in similar circumstances or failure to do what a reasonable man would have done which amounts to infliction of harm.