Welcome to Law-Forums.org!   

Advertisments:




Sponsor Links:

Discount Legal Forms
Discounted Legal Texts


You

Been the victim of Medical Malpractice or fighting a malpractice suit? Discuss it here.

You

Postby Spencer » Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:33 am

Why is it that your answers are so filled with anger and encourage people to sue who have no case and are not victims? Are you bitter? Did you fail out of medical school? Here is an answer from a learned attorney on this forum:

"Before you can know if you have a malpractice case or not, you have to find out definitively what the problem is. Then, after you do what can be done to fix the problem, you look at the damages. Unless they are quite severe, some kind of permanent pain or disability that cannot be alleviated by further medical care, even if there was negligence by the surgeon, the case would not be economically viable. Obviously, the last thing you want to have is a big malpractice case. That means you have suffered severe permanent injury. I think you will get fixed up and be fine but of course, I am not a doctor and don't know much about your case.

Here, you tell me if you have a case.  Imagine a medical textbook that spells out the proper way to do your surgery. It warns against doing someone wrong in particular. This is what your surgeon did. Then you need at least a couple of surgeons to agree that yes, your surgeon breached the "standard of care" as stated in the book. As a result, you suffered serious injury. That would make a mp case.  But when you sue, your surgeon has his own experts stating that although the result was not as hoped, everything was done within the standard of care. Further, that due to your anatomy or an unanticipated problem during surgery, he had to do it the way he did. If he followed the book, the result would have been worse. That is the defense. Your lawyer would have to shell out at least 10-20K from his own pocket to pay for the experts and the other costs of the case. He would have to work the case for at least 1-2 years. As you can imagine, unless the case has a good chance of resulting in a verdict of at least a couple hundred thousand, it isn't worth it because the chance of getting paid nothing and losing the 10-20 is very high. That should give you a good picture. I think you will be fine. Might need more surgery but you are young and should do fine. Good luck "

Why is he giving a real, honest assessment and you spew venom for people whp, by and large, try to help patients? Who takes care of you when you get sick?  
Spencer
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:58 am

You

Postby Webber » Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:05 pm

I agree with what you say.

I am not filled with venom. If you read several of my answers to people who may have been tbe object of malpractice, you will see that almost always I recommend that they see a malpractice layer. These people already suspect they have been mishandled. I merely tell them they have a right to see a lawyer and a right to sue. Also, several times in a month or so I tell people that no one will know if it is malpracxtice or not. Often even after a verdict they may not know. Malpractice is decided on the basis of 'expert' witnesses and jurors dismiss or believe a wintess by his manner and attitude as much as by his skills and honesty.

Last week I answered a question for woman who told of several lab examinations, and she in effect asked me what these were for. I have no idea, but from her story I felt that doctor had never sat down to tell her what he thought might be happening, and he ran one test after another. My susoicion then and now is that this was guy who bled the insurance carrier for he could.  I didn't say that to the patient, but I recommended that she a lawyer.

As far as my attitude about whatever lawyers these people see, he has to make up his own mind if the case is worth filing. He knows his area and he should be aware of cases that have failed. He puts out one hell of a lot of money these days if he files a case. Experts think nothing of 5K to 'review' the records. You know, as well as I do, that for a given ten pounds of records, maybe only ten or twelve pages spell out the problem. But every jurisdiction has its style, and you or I can not predict the outcome of any case not in our bailiwick and within our understanding. I am sorry if you think I am angry at the medical profession. I am not. But I have interviewed perhaps hundreds of doctors, and many just don't cut it.

By the way. 'Tort Reform' will hurt the defense bar every bit as much as the plaintiff's bar. It will be the happiest day of the insurance industry's reign. How can anyone  believe that capping veridcts will have an effect other than to reduce the nnumber of cases, good and bad, that are filed. I am much afraid that the 'Health Care' plans will set us all back 100 years.

Thanks for your interest. Keep going.
Webber
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:16 am

You

Postby Halphon » Mon Nov 14, 2016 3:21 pm

Why is it that your answers are so filled with anger and encourage people to sue who have no case and are not victims? Are you bitter? Did you fail out of medical school? Here is an answer from a learned attorney on this forum:

"Before you can know if you have a malpractice case or not, you have to find out definitively what the problem is. Then, after you do what can be done to fix the problem, you look at the damages. Unless they are quite severe, some kind of permanent pain or disability that cannot be alleviated by further medical care, even if there was negligence by the surgeon, the case would not be economically viable. Obviously, the last thing you want to have is a big malpractice case. That means you have suffered severe permanent injury. I think you will get fixed up and be fine but of course, I am not a doctor and don't know much about your case.

Here, you tell me if you have a case.  Imagine a medical textbook that spells out the proper way to do your surgery. It warns against doing someone wrong in particular. This is what your surgeon did. Then you need at least a couple of surgeons to agree that yes, your surgeon breached the "standard of care" as stated in the book. As a result, you suffered serious injury. That would make a mp case.  But when you sue, your surgeon has his own experts stating that although the result was not as hoped, everything was done within the standard of care. Further, that due to your anatomy or an unanticipated problem during surgery, he had to do it the way he did. If he followed the book, the result would have been worse. That is the defense. Your lawyer would have to shell out at least 10-20K from his own pocket to pay for the experts and the other costs of the case. He would have to work the case for at least 1-2 years. As you can imagine, unless the case has a good chance of resulting in a verdict of at least a couple hundred thousand, it isn't worth it because the chance of getting paid nothing and losing the 10-20 is very high. That should give you a good picture. I think you will be fine. Might need more surgery but you are young and should do fine. Good luck "

Why is he giving a real, honest assessment and you spew venom for people whp, by and large, try to help patients? Who takes care of you when you get sick?  
Halphon
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 1:06 am


Return to Medical Malpractice

cron