In order to successfully prove a medical negligence case, medical malpractice attorneys must prove that the doctor failed to live up to the appropriate standard of care. Generally, lawyers, on behalf of their clients, must call expert witnesses in order to establish the relevant standard of care that professionals are expected to fulfill. However, in many jurisdictions, plaintiffs may not need to present expert witnesses if the negligence undertaken by the doctor was “so grossly apparent, that a layman would have no difficulty recognizing it”.
When Would a Layman Recognize Medical Malpractice?
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 does not need advanced medical schooling and degrees to recognize that a foreign object should not be left inside of a patient following a procedure. Therefore, a jury can easily see for themselves that there was a breach of a duty resulting in medical malpractice, without the unnecessary parade of highly educated doctors at trial.
One final example came about in the Texas case of Schneider v. Haws. In that case, no expert testimony was necessary to prove medical negligence when a patient was not provided an escort or mechanism to safely return her to the waiting room. The patient ended up hitting her head due to the lack of assistance and supervision following a meeting with the doctor.
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 
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 
Lawyers believe that hedonic damages should be recognized in all states because the victims of some incidents of medical malpractice will no longer be able to engage in these behaviors. Imagine the case of an avid swimmer who, because of medical malpractice, could no longer kick her feet. Another example would be the golfer who, because of medical negligence, experienced stiffness in his arms and could no longer swing his clubs.
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.