In the past, under the common law, if either the plaintiff or defendant of a tort claim died, the action would be ended. This is because one of the parties, who either deserved compensation or who was liable, would no longer be around. A simple example would be if a patient was injured by a doctor due to medical negligence, the action would end if either party passed away. Also, historically there was no right to recovery for survivors of a patient who was negligently killed by a doctor’s medical malpractice (and the patient’s family could not recovery pecuniary losses or for the loss of companionship). Today, every state has altered these rules by statute which allows medical malpractice attorneys to bring lawsuits in search of compensation, even if their client or the defendant has passed away.
The Types of Actions
The first types of laws that have been implemented are generally referred to as “survival” statutes. Under these statutes, a lawsuit will not come to a halt simply because one of the parties has passed away prior to the litigation. This means that lawsuits, including those for medical malpractice, will survive the death of either party. Alternatively, there are also laws in place known as “wrongful death” statutes. These statutes create a cause of action for the family who has been left behind following the death of a plaintiff. An example of a wrongful death situation may be if a doctor’s tortious activity, such as negligence or malpractice, leads to the death of a patient. In that case, the family of the patient may still bring a lawsuit against the doctor even though the true victim of the tort, the deceased patient, is no longer around. Lawyers have found that although some states have elected to combine the two types of actions into a single statute, every state provides this type of protection for patients and their loved ones.
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.
Some lawyers who have represented defendants in these sorts of cases have come forth with surprising, if not shocking, legal arguments to avoid liability. Some attorneys in this situation have argued that there can not possibly be negligence because that tort requires a duty and a breach of duty. The argument follows that a defendant could not have possibly had a duty of care towards a being that is not yet born. This approach is very rarely accepted because it sets forth bad public policy and it tends to disregard the values we tend to hold as a society. Negligence that harms an unborn baby is just as undesirable as 
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 
The main goal is to determine whether the law is truly holding only negligent doctors liable while finding that on occasion, bad results do occur in the medical profession even when good doctors are providing treatment. Lawyers believe that the possibility of legal resolutions and potential lawsuits should result in doctors using safer procedures, better diagnostic tests, and more extensive fact finding before providing treatment. The law should also urge doctors to follow the “customary practice” standard which would discourage doctors from using untried and dangerous treatments as opposed to what is generally acceptable in the field. Finally, it is the hope of patients and medical malpractice attorneys alike that the possibility of a lengthy litigation process will push doctors to adapt and change with the profession rather than sticking with their old ways when new approaches are readily available.
Expert testimony is not necessary to prove a plaintiff’s case when the negligent conduct of the doctor was a matter of common knowledge. One example that constitutes a “matter of common knowledge” is all too frequent in medical treatment today. This example involves a surgeon who negligently leaves a foreign object inside of a patient, such as a sponge, following a medical procedure. Expert testimony is not necessary to prove that the doctor breached his duty to the patient when he began the procedure. A layperson 
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.