Medical malpractice attorneys have found that negligence may be the most important form of any tort liability in our jurisprudence today. This is in part due to the flexible principles of negligence that enable liability to be applied to many types of conduct that cause accidental harm. The main difference between negligence and all other forms of torts (i.e. assault and battery) is that negligence is not concerned with the state of mind of the person who committed or neglected to commit the act. The main thing that is looked at by lawyers, and judges who oversee cases, is the conduct of a defendant (such as a doctor or nurse) and whether they should have known of the risks that were possible.
The Four Elements of Negligence
The four elements of negligence, which are frequently referred to in medical malpractice cases, include duty, breach of duty, causation, and damage. In a medical malpractice framework, doctors, nurses, and other healthcare providers owe their clients a duty to live up to the relevant standard of care. A doctor who does something that is not in accord with the standard of care, or similarly, fails to do something that they should have, may breach their duty to the patient. Third, a plaintiff in a medical malpractice lawsuit must show that because the doctor breached his duty of care that was owed to the plaintiff, the incident occurred. This is frequently referred to as causation. Had a doctor done or not done something, the patient would not have been harmed. Finally, to prove a negligence lawsuit, it is essential for a patient to prove that there were damages. It is not enough to show that the doctor did not live up to the standard of care if there were no ill effects from the incident. Once a plaintiff has shown these four elements of negligence, it is likely that they will prevail in a malpractice suit.
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.
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 
This category of the law has spread in recent years and in different jurisdictions across the United States, other individuals have been able to claim loss of consortium. Some of these individuals include parents, grandparents, and children. It is crucial for lawyers to know the common law in the jurisdiction in which they practice because 
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.
