The North Carolina Senate has recently passed a bill that is expected to reform medical malpractice laws. Specifically, the bill will limit the amount of money plaintiffs can be awarded following a civil trial within the state. The legislature’s hope is that with the liability of medical malpractice limited, higher quality doctors and medical personnel will stay within the state. The goals of the Senate also include a hope to lower health care costs because as liability decreases, the cost of medical malpractice insurance will also become lower. Although it is a great advantage for the state to have lower health care costs and more respected medical personnel, this action may also limit the availability of just remedies to those who are hurt by medical malpractice and negligence.
Patient’s Remedies Become Limited
Patients in North Carolina will still be able to recover medical costs and lost income that result from medical malpractice or negligence. However, there will now be a $500,000 cap on the amount juries are able to award for non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering. A safeguard is included for plaintiffs which says that this cap is not relevant when a doctor or health care providers conduct is seen as grossly negligent, fraudulent, intentional, malicious, or reckless disregard for others that results in death, permanent injury, disfigurement, or loss of a part of the body. This exception does not cover incidents when patients are seriously injured by medical malpractice that does not fall into one of these narrow exception categories. North Carolina Senate President Phil Berger stated:
“Our citizens suffer in a lottery-like system that lets trial lawyers win big while doctors flee to states where they can practice without fear of unfair lawsuits. I commend our members for reaching a reasonable compromise.”
What Berger fails to recognize is that the legal system and judges are in place to decide when a lawsuit is unfair. If a judge allows a case to go to trial, why shouldn’t injured patients be allowed to collect damages that a jury of their peers found fitting? Medical malpractice and negligence is the problem, plaintiffs who collect money following extreme pain and suffering is justice. Limiting the amount of money that severely injured people can collect is extremely unfair, especially when much of that suffering comes at the hands of doctors that are paid to be attentive, not negligent.
Medical Malpractice Attorneys in New Jersey and Philadelphia
If you or a loved one has recently undergone a medical procedure but are still in pain which you believe can be attributed to medical malpractice, it is possible that you have some questions. Please contact the Mininno Law Office at 856-833-0600 in New Jersey, or 215-567-2380 in Philadelphia.
The Duques brought their baby girl to Nebraska for a transplant after she was born with congenital defects. Almariah received a pancreas, liver, and small bowel transplant in late December of 2009. She was discharged from the hospital a few months later but quickly returned as she developed an infection. 
Following the initial heart surgery, Pinarkyil began experiencing some cardiac abnormalities in addition to displaying some signs of shock. Doctors treated him with additional fluids and medications but there was no significant improvement in his condition. Over the following two days, Pinarkyil’s cardiac output was dramatically reduced. Pinarkyil’s initial surgery was on June 1st, 2007, by June 4th he was dead. The death occurred because doctors failed to recognize that the shock and dramatic health issues seen after surgery could be directly linked to the man’s heart. We believe that if the proper devices would have been used, such as an intra-aortic balloon pump, Pinarkyil would not have had organ failure. As Mr. Pinarkyil lost his life, it is hard not to feel the most sympathy for his widow and three young children. Pinarkyil’s medical malpractice attorney stated, “our hope is that this compensation will help offset the financial impact of his loss to his widow and daughters, as well as the son who will grow up without ever having met his father.”
Juries frequently award plaintiffs both economic and non-economic compensatory damages. Medical malpractice attorneys explain economic damages as monies awarded to cover financial losses such as medical expenses, care expenses, and lost wages. Economic damages are frequently used to cover both the past and the future. Individuals who, because of negligence, can no longer work are entitled money damages for the time that they have already missed as well as future absence from their job. Medical malpractice attorneys explain non-economic damages as money that has been assessed for the injury itself. The types of recovery for non-economic damages are somewhat endless. Examples of these damages include psychological and physical harm, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, emotional distress, and many others. Finally, punitive damages are used to “teach the defendant a lesson,” and they are generally utilized in the case of some sort of wanton or reckless conduct.
A jury in Georgia recently awarded $2million to Elizabeth Costlow for the wrongful death of her 82 year old mother, Ruby Mae Tyle. Tyler was a patient at the Rockmart Nursing and Rehabilitation Center for a little over 3 months when she passed away. Costlow contended that her mother died due to 
During discovery, each party will conduct interrogatories, depositions, and file many requests for documents, in an effort to get to the bottom of the controversy. The plaintiff is required to prove each and every element of negligence (by a preponderance of evidence in civil court) in order to prevail in his or her medical malpractice claim. The first element is that the defendant (the physician, nurse, or hospital) owed a duty to the patient, such as caring for them or providing treatment. 
A Connecticut jury rendered what 
The lawsuit, filed by the estate of Ms. Farrell, charged the hospital and Dr. Shander with negligence, but a Superior Court jury found that neither was liable for any form of malpractice. Nearly three years later, the appellate court put a halt on the lower court’s ruling because the trial judge should have asked potential jurors if they had read a New York Times Article before the trial began. The article could have potentially swayed the emotions and prejudices of the jurors which could have led to an unfair influence on the verdict.