The lady in risk management was very nice and very sympathetic and apologized profusely for everyone who had behaved badly. She forced the doctor to send in a prescription for the correct quantity of the med he had lied about and claimed was an opiod. I checked with my mail-in pharmacy and with two local pharmacists where I live and they all said that my med is definitely not an opiod and that a 90 day quantity is done all the time. So I had to pay almost $80.00 for the 30 day script the incompetent doctor sent in, and then when he was forced to send in another script that was correct, I will have to pay $120.00. Had he done what he was supposed to do from the start, I would not have had to pay the unnecessary expense of the $80.00. So, I know my experience was not nearly as harrowing as many of the ones I have read, but I have to agree with all of you. There really are some incredibly bad, incompetent, and I'd go so far as to say evil doctors out there. Who knows? Maybe they are crazy too, and they are taking it out on their patients and they just haven't been caught yet. All I know is that I've had incompetent doctors before, but I have NEVER had one who was just so nasty, so unprofessional, and who made me feel like I just needed to take a shower after I'd been in his presence. People like that should have their licenses revoked. They do more harm than good and they have no business being in this line of work.
The fundamental elements of litigated medical malpractice are, above all, duty and negligence. Historic efforts define these two elements were muddled - fourteenth-century law under Henry V held that the physician owed a duty of care to the patient because medicine was a “common calling” (a profession), and required physicians to exercise care and prudence. Those in other professions who did not practice a "common calling” were liable only if an express promise had been made to achieve or avoid a certain result. In the absence of such a promise, the professional could not be held liable. Physicians, then, were held to a separate standard because of the nature of their profession. Modern notions of negligence are parallel to what history called the “carelessness” of early physicians. The notion of duty was legally elucidated in British common law. Carelessness and neglect were not in and of themselves causes of action lest the practitioner by nature of their profession had a duty to the person to whom they rendered care. The law determined that medical professionals were legally bound by a duty of care to their patients. Negligence was thereby grounds for legal action. The establishment of duty and negligence laid the foundation for Anglo-American legislation of medical malpractice.
Some state courts still use the Frye test that relies on scientific consensus to assess the admissibility of novel scientific evidence. Daubert expressly rejected the earlier federal rule's incorporation of the Frye test. (Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-594) Expert testimony that would have passed the Frye test is now excluded under the more stringent requirements of Federal Rules of Evidence as construed by Daubert.
If an expert testifies that a doctor had the opportunity to diagnose cancer earlier but failed (negligently) to do so, it would then have to be shown through complex medical evidence that the patient suffered additional harm. Proving that a delay in diagnosis lead to additional injury – death from cancer that otherwise may have been cured, or prolonged treatment and suffering that should have been avoided – is necessary to establish a medical malpractice claim.
Robotic surgery malpractice occurs when a person is harmed during a surgical procedure that entails the use of a robotic device. This may involve a machine being controlled improperly by a doctor, thus resulting in extreme injuries. It can also entail the machine leaving items used in the surgical procedure inside a patient’s body. Sometimes it can especially occur because the doctor is not fully trained in handling the machine or might not have even informed the patient about the use of the robotic device during the procedure.
A a 2004 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report using data from a private actuarial firm and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) found that malpractice costs (excluding "defensive medicine") account for less than 2 percent of health care spending.[51] A 2006 PriceWaterhouseCoopers report for America's Health Insurance Plans (a health-insurer trade association) used the 2 percent figure and an extrapolation from the Kessler and McClellan report to estimate that the combined cost of insurance and defensive medicine accounts for 10 percent of total health care costs in the U.S.[52]
It is usually the case that a visit to our doctor will be enough to receive the medical advice required to send us away on the road to recovery without any further intervention being required. However, on occasion, GPs act negligently which results in complications being suffered by the patient. This may lead to further treatment or surgery which would have been unnecessary but for the GP’s negligence.
Why is the statute of limitations deadline so important? If you try to file your claim after the deadline has passed, the health care provider you're trying to sue us sure to make a motion to dismiss the case, and the court is certain to grant it -- unless there's a reason to extend the deadline as it applies to your case, including the exceptions we've discussed in this article.
In view of Daubert and Kuhmo, the pre trial preparation of expert witnesses is critical.[16] A problem with Daubert is that the presiding judge may admit testimony which derives from highly contested data. The judge may expand the limits contained in the "school of thought" precedent. Papers that are self-published may be admiited as the basis for expert testimony. Non-peer reviewed journals may also be admitted in similar fashion. The only criterion is the opinion of a single judge who, in all likelihood, has no relevant scientific or medical training.[17]
Most people are able to get to at least second base with a failure to warn claim.  Fewer are able to prove that the doctor simply did not talk to them about that particular risk, although there are cases where a patient’s word has been accepted over a doctor’s insistence that a warning was given.  Getting copies of the doctor’s medical notes can help with this element.
In states using this second standard, courts ask whether a normal patient, with the same medical history and conditions as the plaintiff, would have changed his or her mind about the treatment if the risk was disclosed. Unlike states following the first standard, a doctor must also inform a patient of realistic alternative treatments, even if the doctor only recommends one treatment.
The defendant is the health care provider. Although a 'health care provider' usually refers to a physician, the term includes any medical care provider, including dentists, nurses, and therapists. As illustrated in Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas v Bush, 122 S.W. 3d 835 (Tex. 2003), "following orders" may not protect nurses and other non-physicians from liability when committing negligent acts. Relying on vicarious liability or direct corporate negligence, claims may also be brought against hospitals, clinics, managed care organizations or medical corporations for the mistakes of their employees and contractors.[8]

This Health Policy Report describes the malpractice system in the United States, examines its shortcomings, and analyzes the forces that have led to past and current malpractice crises. The authors review options for reform of the U.S. malpractice system. Conventional tort reforms include caps on damages, limits on attorneys' fees, and shortening of the statute of limitations. Experts have also proposed major system reforms, such as enterprise liability or administrative compensation.
Wrong Diagnosis: The ER doctor gives you a diagnosis, but it turns out they have picked the wrong disease. While you are being treated for it, the real disease could progress, possibly causing a permanent injury. While an incorrect diagnosis could be a common mistake since many illnesses display similar side effects, if it resulted due to someone not doing their job properly, it is considered malpractice.
Plaintiffs' lawyers say that the Texas law prevents patients from getting compensation or damages even in cases where the patient clearly deserves it. In particular, the “willful and wanton” negligence standard for emergency care, which requires that the harm to the patient be intentional, makes it impossible to win a case where the harm is clearly negligent but not willful.[48]

If someone is an employee of a hospital, the hospital is typically responsible (liable) if that employee hurts a patient by acting incompetently. In other words, if the employee is negligent (is not reasonably cautious when treating or dealing with a patient), the hospital will usually be on the hook for any resulting injuries to the patient. (Keep in mind that not every mistake or unfortunate event that happens in a hospital rises to the level of negligence. To learn more about what constitutes medical malpractice, read Nolo's article Medical Malpractice Basics. )


Is our situation unique? According to the MPS report, in the United States there have been two waves of legal reforms prompted by medical malpractice claims: one in the mid-80s and another in the early 2000s. Reforms were driven by an increase in insurance premiums and concerns about access to health care. Since 2000, 29 states in the US have introduced limitations on damages; some limit both “economic” and “general” damages (compensation for pain and suffering), while others cap only general damages.
Whether a doctor is a hospital employee depends on the nature of his or her relationship with the facility. Though some doctors are hospital employees, most doctors are not. Non-employee doctors are usually classified as "independent contractors" in the eyes of the law, which means that the hospital cannot be held responsible for the doctor's medical malpractice, even if the malpractice happened at the facility, and the doctor is officially affiliated with the facility.

The more common (and some believe more reliable) approach used by all federal courts and most state courts is the 'gatekeeper' model, which is a test formulated from the US Supreme Court cases Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (509 U.S. 579 [1993]), General Electric Co. v. Joiner (522 U.S. 136 [1997]), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (526 U.S. 137 [1999]). Before the trial, a Daubert hearing[15] will take place before the judge (without the jury). The trial court judge must consider evidence presented to determine whether an expert's "testimony rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand." (Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597). The Daubert hearing considers 4 questions about the testimony the prospective expert proposes:
Most states have modified the locality rule to include both an evaluation of the customary practices of local physicians and an examination of national medical standards. Physicians are called to testify as expert witnesses by both sides in medical malpractice trials because the jury is not familiar with the intricacies of medicine. Standards established by medical specialty organizations, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, are often used by these expert witnesses to address the alleged negligent actions of a physician who practices in that specialty. Nonconformance to these standards is evidence of negligence, whereas conformance supports a finding of due care.

Emotionally fragile patients. If a doctor knows that the patient is so distressed that he or she will refuse needed treatment, the doctor may not be required to get the patient's informed consent. For example, if a brain tumor is life threatening, but removal entails frightening risks like paralysis, it may be appropriate for the doctor to be vague in her description of the risks.

You withheld information from the doctor or gave misleading information to the doctor which might have aided or hindered the doctor’s ability to diagnose the problem. For example, if you tell the doctor that you don’t smoke even though you do, than the doctor may not be able to properly diagnose that you have developed lung cancer or other respiratory illnesses.
Your attorney should also disclose “bad facts” in the opening statement.[20] A bad fact is anything the defense would want to bring to the jury’s attention because it makes the defense case much stronger. For example, your failure to follow your doctor’s prescribed treatment is a bad fact. By disclosing bad facts first, your attorney can take the sting out of them.
I think that success rates of surgeries for each doctor ought to be recorded and published on the internet and all malpractice suits and judgments against doctors ought to be there, too. This is not at ALL the same as a patient wanting to know personal information about the life of their shrink. Face it. Some surgeons botch surgeries over and over and others are great. I consider the cited case malpractice.
You facts do seem to point to malpractice. In light of time limitations, I would consult with a medical malpractice attorney asap, for a free consult - bring your medical records with you as well as any other evidence, so he can thoroughly review it. With any luck, you can settle this case rather then expend huge somes litigating and preparing for trial, because the experts along cost quite a bit.
Membership fees paid to the CMPA give physicians insurance coverage and a right to representation in medical malpractice lawsuits.  However, provincial governments reimburse physicians for at least a portion of their membership fees.  These arrangements are not generally made public.  However, a recently released Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Health, the Ontario Medical Association, and the CMPA reveals that physicians are currently reimbursed for about 83 percent of their membership fees.[7]  It has been reported that the Ontario government paid about Can$112 million to reimburse physicians for medical malpractice fees in 2008.[8]  Government officials in Ontario have explained that the purpose of the reimbursement program is to encourage physicians to practice in the province and not to move to another province or the United States where average incomes may be higher.  Critics contend that because the CMPA’s fees are not based upon a physician’s record, the system does little to penalize physicians who are found to be liable for malpractice even on multiple occasions.[9]  Physicians who have committed acts of malpractice may, however, be disciplined by their provincial licensing body.  Discipline can range from suspensions to losses of the privilege to continue practicing medicine.

While an investigation against your doctor could lead to the revocation of his license, such action is rare. Only in the most extreme cases, where the Board feels that your doctor is a threat to the well-being of his patients, will his or her license be revoked. The Board could decide to take lesser action such as limiting his license, issuing a censure and reprimand, or require him or her to attend training.
This website includes general information about legal issues and developments in the law. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. All material on this site is not intended, and must not be taken, as legal advice. Contact a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on specific legal issues or problems. Receipt of information from and use of this website to contact Gilman & Bedigian or one of its lawyers does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information until an attorney-client relationship has been established.
“We comply, where applicable, with the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 published by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and any solicitor [or registered European lawyer] to whom we may refer you is an independent professional from whom you will receive impartial and confidential advice. You are free to choose another solicitor [or registered European lawyer]"
The terms negligence and malpractice are often used interchangeably. Strictly speaking, negligence is a failure to “exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise” in similar circumstances. Medical malpractice, according to Andre Calitz, the chief operating officer for personal injury law practice Joseph’s Incorporated in Johannesburg, is an evaluation of conduct measured against a standard of medical care established by the medical fraternity.
In addition, if they lose the civil and/or criminal case it makes it easier for the patient to get the medical board to take action against the physician, rarely causing them to lose their license but maybe forcing them to take classes, pay a fine, they have to travel to the state capitol, the embarrassment of being dressed down by their peers, etc.

Calitz explains that to bring a successful medical malpractice claim, you need to prove that the treatment you received deviated from a particular “standard of care”, and that it was the deviation (which can be an act or omission) from this standard that resulted in harm. The “standard of care” is defined as what a reasonably prudent medical provider would or would not have done under the same or similar circumstances.


Filing a complaint against a doctor with your state’s medical board is usually the first step in bringing disciplinary action against a doctor. Although the particulars vary by state, when the board receives complaints against doctors, it enters them into a system. The board then reviews complaints or refers them to another agency if needed. The medical board may ask to see medical records. If you complain about a doctor, the medical board will not disclose your identity.

Usually these cases are handled as civil matters, because the doctor lacked the requisite intent or did not act in a completely wanton and reckless manner. Additionally, the doctor may face disciplinary proceedings against his or her license, and could be fire by any institution for which he or she works. This could result in an enormous judgment against the doctor, loss of a professional license, and unemployment. The loss of a patient is not likely to be handled lightly, even though it may only result in civil penalties.
In New York, medical malpractice lawsuits must be brought within two and a half years from the time of the malpractice, or within two and a half years from the date of the last continuous treatment for the condition that gave rise to the injury. However, there are exceptions. The Statute might be shorter if the hospital is owned and run by a municipality or the State. The Statute may be longer where a foreign object was left inside of you. It is longer when the plaintiff is a child. Calculating a medical malpractice statute of limitations requires a complete knowledge of the facts and lawyerly skill. Contact us to discuss your statute of limitations.
Among the leading causes of medical misdiagnosis is a failure to communicate diagnostic test results. Communication of a diagnosis is arguably as important as the diagnosis itself. Patients deserve to know the results of the medical tests they receive in a timely manner. Test results should also be communicated from the lab or testing facility to the medical providers responsible for the patient’s treatment.
Plaintiffs' lawyers say that the Texas law prevents patients from getting compensation or damages even in cases where the patient clearly deserves it. In particular, the “willful and wanton” negligence standard for emergency care, which requires that the harm to the patient be intentional, makes it impossible to win a case where the harm is clearly negligent but not willful.[48]
Here is the step most people don’t realize. If the patient’s lawyer wants to take the case further, they need to get an expert witness. That will cost them a lot of money. So if the case is weak, they will do some sort of calculation. For example, they will say they spent 50 hours so far, and they want to make 10,000 for that, so they will offer to dismiss the case for 20,000, which they will split with the patient. Many cases will settle at this point, because it’s easier to spend a little money and avoid the massive costs of going to court, as well as avoiding the risk of a big payout to the patient. This is the reason I say it’s easy to sue a doctor for malpractice, lose the case, but still make some money.

The key in proving a medical malpractice claim based on misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis is to compare what the treating doctor did (or didn't do) to how other competent doctors within the same speciality would have handled the case. If a reasonably skillful and competent doctor under the same circumstances would not have made the diagnostic error, then the treating doctor may be liable for malpractice. (To learn more about proving a misdiagnosis claim, see Nolo's article Medical Malpractice: Misdiagnosis and Delayed Diagnosis.)

If you want to exchange the product you ordered for a different one, you must request this exchange and complete your replacement order within 60 days of purchase. The purchase price of the original item, less any money paid to government entities, such as filing fees or taxes, or to other third parties with a role in processing your order, will be credited to your LegalZoom account. Any payments made directly by you to attorneys affiliated with our legal plans or attorney-assisted products are not eligible for exchange or credit. Any price difference between the original order and the replacement order or, if a replacement order is not completed within 60 days of purchase, the full original purchase price (in each case less any money paid to government entities or other third parties) will be credited to the original form of payment. If you paid for your original order by check, LegalZoom will mail a check for the applicable amount to your billing address.
In response to rising malpractice suits, many states pushed for "tort reform" measures. Such measures limit the amount of damages a patient can recover for noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering, and Punitive Damages. For example, in 1975, California enacted the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, which limits recovery of noneconomic damages at $250,000 and restricts the amount of fees that may be recovered by lawyers. Several other states adopted similar measures based on the California model.
During the formative centuries of English common law after the critical Battle of Hastings in 1066, medical malpractice legislation began taking shape. The Court of Common Law shows several medical malpractice decisions on record. An 1164 case, Everad v. Hopkins saw a servant and his master collect damages against a physician for practicing "unwholesome medicine." The 1374 case Stratton v  Swanlond is frequently cited as the "fourteenth-century ancestor" of medical malpractice law. Chief Justice John Cavendish presided over the case, in which one Agnes of Stratton and her husband sued surgeon John Swanlond for breach of contract after he failed to treat and cure her severely mangled hand. Stratton saw her case ultimately dismissed due to an error in the Writ of Complaint, however, the case served as a crucial cornerstone in setting certain standards of medical care.

In the United States, there are many jurisdictional issues that could bar bringing a claim in an American court. Litigants would have to establish that the doctor had sufficient contacts with the United States for it to exert jurisdiction over him or her. Even if the court does find that it can take jurisdiction over the case, it has to determine which nation and state’s laws would apply. 

Medical malpractice is professional negligence by act or omission by a health care provider in which the treatment provided falls below the accepted standard of practice in the medical community and causes injury or death to the patient, with most cases involving medical error.[1] Claims of medical malpractice, when pursued in US courts, are processed as civil torts. Sometimes an act of medical malpractice will also constitute a criminal act, as in the case of the death of Michael Jackson.

Back surgery remains a highly controversial area of surgical medicine and the ambiguity of the outcomes supports why some surgeons are extremely conservative in identifying good surgical candidates. The first surgeon did not find you to be a good surgical candidate, the second one did. "proving" that surgeon #1 lied to you may assuage your outrage, but does nothing to further your case or your health and it's likely to fail in court. So my opinion, move on. Best of luck.
×