In the past, medical malpractice attorneys were extremely limited when bringing lawsuits, especially in determining who could be found liable. Under the doctrine of charitable immunity, hospitals were completely free from tort liability. This doctrine has been eliminated or minimized in many jurisdictions leading to three theories that have been used to hold hospitals liable when their doctors and nurses commit negligent acts. These three theories are known as respondeat superior, ostensible agency, and corporate negligence.
Hospitals are Responsible for Their Healthcare Providers
Under the respondeat superior theory, a theory that applies to many employer/employee relationships, the healthcare provider must be employed by the hospital. In order for a hospital to be liable under respondeat superior, the negligence must occur within the scope of the doctor’s employment practices. Secondly, ostensible agency may apply even if the doctor is not directly employed by the hospital and rather acts as an independent contractor. Under this theory, if a patient looks to the hospital for care rather than a specific doctor or the hospital represents the doctor as an employee, the hospital may be found liable. Lastly, more and more courts are holding hospitals liable under a theory of “corporate negligence”. Under that theory, lawyers may sue hospitals when they fail to review the treatment prescribed by doctor’s or require consultation. This has been a major trend in recent years that has allowed plaintiffs who have been injured by negligent healthcare providers to seek damages from the hospital as opposed to merely a single doctor or nurse.
Medical Malpractice Attorneys in New Jersey and Philadelphia
If you or a family member have recently been the victim of medical negligence, it is possible that you would like to speak with our professionals. Please contact the Mininno Law Office for a free case evaluation, or call for a free consultation at (856) 833-0600 in New Jersey, or (215) 567-2380 in Philadelphia.
One important case regarding medical malpractice was Hickson v. Martinez from a Texas appellate court. That court held that doctors must act as prudent and reasonable doctors in the same or similar communities would. This ensures that no matter what healthcare provider a patient decides to go to for treatment, that treatment will be relatively similar. Another important case comes from Indiana and is cited as Vergara v. Doan. That court held that a doctor must exercise the degree of skill, care, and proficiency that would be exercised by reasonably careful, skillful, and prudent doctors who are placed under similar circumstances. That court said that the locality, different advances in the profession as a whole, the availability of facilities, and whether the healthcare provider was a specialist or a general practitioner are all to be considered. The final case that illustrates this aspect of the law comes from Mississippi. In Hall v. Hilbun, the court viewed the locality expansively, taking into consideration doctors across the United States who have similar facilities, services, equipment and options available to them. Medical malpractice attorneys have found that regardless of the technical criteria of a jurisdiction, doctors should hold themselves to the acceptable standards of other doctors in similar situations.
We write a lot about shocking and extreme cases of elder abuse and neglect. But we want to remind you that, as 
In the first approved settlement, the State Appeals Board approved a settlement in the case of Melinda Schultz for a figure around $300,000. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that her anesthesiologist negligently administered pain medication prior to a knee operation. In the second settlement, the family of William Bribriesco was awarded $91,000 to settle the case. Mr. Bribriesco passed away following an extended term at the hospital. The plaintiff’s lawyers in that case alleged that the man died because he developed an infection which was attributable to negligent treatment during his stay at the University of Iowa Hospital. Following a complicated procedure to treat a heart aneurysm, the medical malpractice attorneys believe that negligent treatment led to the man’s demise.
In some cases, a plaintiff will be awarded a new trial if the damage amount found by the jury appears to be inadequate. In that case, a court will require the case to be retried unless the defendant makes certain concessions. A defendant may agree to pay a larger amount than that which was awarded by the jury in order to properly compensate the plaintiff and avoid a lengthy re-trial. Courts, both on the trial and appellate level, lack the authority 
Governor Bill Haslam made no secrets about his agenda to considerably limit the civil lawsuits within Tennessee. Now with the passing of the “Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011”, medical malpractice attorneys believe that he may have done just that. Pain and suffering, along with other non-economic damages, will now be capped at a maximum of $750,000. Furthermore, the new Act will also limit punitive damages, in both medical malpractice and personal injury cases, to only $500,000. The most shocking, and potentially limiting to plaintiffs and their medical malpractice attorneys, may be the limits placed on catastrophic cases, which will be $1 million but could effect people forever. These cases qualify as the most serious and life altering scenarios of medical malpractice. Some examples of catastrophic cases caused by medical negligence include when patients become paralyzed, blinded, burned, need an amputation, or pass away when children still qualify as minors. This new law seriously inhibits the rights of patients in seeking compensation that will once again make them whole. Although these cases hopefully will not occur too often, in these rare instances it is highly unjust to limit the amount that plaintiffs can seek at trial but such a large amount.
