In some states, there has been a trend to impose a duty on physicians regarding third parties who have not directly sought treatment from the doctor. A simple example may be a doctor who advises a patient, who is prone to seizures, that he can safely drive his care home from an appointment. Should that doctor be liable to a third party who was seriously injured in a car accident after the patient had a seizure driving home? How about a doctor who prescribes a medication, which a patient has an unfortunate reaction to, and injures pedestrians on the car ride home for the doctor’s office? Medical malpractice attorneys have found that different jurisdictions have attacked these issues in different ways, some imposing liability on physicians and others declining to do so.
In Osborne v. United States, a case out of West Virginia, that court permitted a third party to bring a lawsuit against a doctor whose negligent treatment resulted in an injury. The court ruled that in cases where it should have been foreseeable to the healthcare provider, the third party has standing to sue. Lawyers also point to the New York case of Tenuto v. Lederle Labs. In that case, the court found that there was a duty to warn to parents of the risks to their own health, following the vaccination of their children. Finally, medical malpractice attorneys point to the Pennsylvania case of DiMarco v. Lynch Homes-Chester County, Inc. In that case, a doctor negligently advised a patient about a communicable disease. Since the third party was at risk to contract that disease, there was liability placed on the healthcare provider.
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.
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.
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.