Medical malpractice attorneys , in preparing to file a lawsuit, generally look to a series of rules that have been set forth by numerous courts over the years. The rules refer to when a plaintiff may file a malpractice lawsuit and the types of proof that are necessary at trial. The Supreme Court of Arizona set forth a series of rules in 1938 in the case of Boyce v. Brown, that still hold true today.
A Historical Look at Medical Malpractice
The Arizona Supreme Court listed these 6 general rules, these rules are adopted slightly differently in some states and may be the subject of objection yet they lay out a fairly succinct framework.
(1) An individual who is “licensed to practice medicine is presumed to possess the degree of skill and learning which is possessed by the average member of the medical profession in good standing in the community in which he practices.” These doctors are also expected to use ordinary and reasonable care when treating patients.
(2) Prior to a medical professional being held liable for medical malpractice, “he must have done something in his treatment . . . which the recognized standard of good medical practice in the community in which he is practicing forbids in such cases, or he must have neglected to do something which such standards require”.
(3) Medical malpractice attorneys must bring in affirmative evidence to prove the relevant standard of medical practice in the community, which is often shown through expert witnesses and other doctors.
(4) Medical malpractice attorneys must affirmatively prove that there was medical negligence. This rule means that a plaintiff can not just show that the treatment did not work, the best results were not achieved, or that there was a death or injury, there must have been some action or inaction on behalf of the treating doctor.
(5) In order to show that a doctor did not live up to the standard of care, expert medical testimony must be used. However, there may be no need for expert testimony if the negligence is so grossly apparent that a layperson would easily be able to recognize it.
(6)Simply showing that other medical professionals would have undertaken a different medical treatment is not enough to show medical malpractice. It is necessary to show that the course of treatment deviated from one of the methods of treatment approved by the medical community. This rule is in place because there are many acceptable forms of treatment in some cases, just because one doctor may have done it differently does not clearly show malpractice.
(1) An individual who is “licensed to practice medicine is presumed to possess the degree of skill and learning which is possessed by the average member of the medical profession in good standing in the community in which he practices.” These doctors are also expected to use ordinary and reasonable care when treating patients.
(2) Prior to a medical professional being held liable for medical malpractice, “he must have done something in his treatment . . . which the recognized standard of good medical practice in the community in which he is practicing forbids in such cases, or he must have neglected to do something which such standards require”.
(3) Medical malpractice attorneys must bring in affirmative evidence to prove the relevant standard of medical practice in the community, which is often shown through expert witnesses and other doctors.
(4) Medical malpractice attorneys must affirmatively prove that there was medical negligence. This rule means that a plaintiff can not just show that the treatment did not work, the best results were not achieved, or that there was a death or injury, there must have been some action or inaction on behalf of the treating doctor.
(5) In order to show that a doctor did not live up to the standard of care, expert medical testimony must be used. However, there may be no need for expert testimony if the negligence is so grossly apparent that a layperson would easily be able to recognize it.
(6)Simply showing that other medical professionals would have undertaken a different medical treatment is not enough to show medical malpractice. It is necessary to show that the course of treatment deviated from one of the methods of treatment approved by the medical community. This rule is in place because there are many acceptable forms of treatment in some cases, just because one doctor may have done it differently does not clearly show malpractice.
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.
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 
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 
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.
