Medical Malpractice

There are two different doctor/patient situations which can result in the patient receiving compensation in a successful medical malpractice lawsuit. The first is dependent on whether the doctor, in providing treatment, departed from the treatments or procedures generally accepted by the medical community. If this proves to be the case, compensation can be obtained only if the treatment was a substantial factor in causing the injury in question. During a medical malpractice trial, doctors are called to the stand by the opposing parties to explain the standards of care in the medical world. Based on their testimonies, a jury can determine whether the treating doctor was at fault. The jury comes to a conclusion by identifying the proper treatment to be given in the patient's case, and then comparing the treating doctor's actions, and whether the doctor failed to provide this care to the patient.

The second cause of action concerns “lack of informed consent.” In this circumstance, an injured party must prove that the doctor failed to tell the patient of a reasonably foreseeable risk of their medical procedure. Alternatively, having been informed of the risks and alternatives, the patient must prove that a reasonable person in their condition would have not gone forward with the procedure, and that the it was a substantial factor in causing their injury.

One should bear in mind that medical malpractice cases differ from ordinary accident cases. For example, if a medical employee or patient assaults a fellow patient in a hospital, the ensuing case would be a regular negligence suit. Even though the incident occurred in a hospital, the case would deal with the negligent policy that allowed for such an attack, not a lack of patient knowledge or consent.