Source: http://www.medicolegalbriefupdate.com/page/2/
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 10:06:45
Document Index: 439068918

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 36', 'EWCA ', 'art 44', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'CJEU ']

Medico-Legal Brief Update. Providing medico-legal updates to lawyers since 2005
Basics of medical malpractice laws that determine the feasibility of filing a medical negligence case
Some medical malpractices amount to personal injury, and the sufferer can file a lawsuit for claiming compensation due to medical negligence. If a doctor misdiagnoses a disease that results in wrong treatment, it is one kind of professional malpractice. Again, if a surgeon performs surgery at the wrong site or as reported recently that a surgeon removed the kidneys of a patient by mistaking it as a tumor are glaring examples of medical negligence. Similar are the cases of drug errors that doctors commit very often. In all these cases, the patient undergoes pain and suffering for some mistake on the part of doctors and if you Ask4SAM injury lawyer, they would advise filing a personal injury lawsuit to claim compensation for damages.
Lawsuits for medical negligence can charge hospitals, doctors, nurses, EMTs, or any other medical professionals involved in the process that caused injury to the patient. Besides physical injury, the mental trauma associated with it forms a part of the damages. Medical malpractice is just like any other professional malpractice, and the law comes into force only when an individual receives injuries as explained above during the process of receiving some medical care of medical treatment.
To get the compensation in any medical malpractice, you must be aware of medical malpractices by gathering knowledge about it and know how to lodge a claim by proving it. Medical negligence is the most common form of medical malpractice that we usually experience. It happens when the doctor or any other medical professional responsible for providing medical care fails to perform his or her duty competently.
Since the rules about medical practices vary between States, in this article we will discuss the broad categories of rules applicable to most medical malpractice cases. Keep reading to get an overview of the laws and regulations.
In the court of law, you must prove comprehensively that medical malpractice has occurred for which you must be able to establish a few facts that demonstrate that there was a professional relationship between the doctor and patient, the doctor was negligent, and the injury resulted in damages.
Doctor-patient relationship – The primary requirement to file a claim for damages is to establish that there was a professional relationship between the doctor and patient in which the patient approached the doctor for treating him or her, and the doctor agreed to it. Only when the doctor examines the patient and initiates treatment that you can establish the relationship. The question of relationship arises mostly for consulting doctors not directly treating the patient. Similarly, you cannot sue a doctor who has offered some casual advice without any professional engagement.
Doctor’s negligence – Your feelings about poor treatment or unsatisfactory results does not make a case for medical malpractice. It is necessary to prove that the doctor was negligent with respect to the diagnosis or treatment. To build a case for medical negligence or malpractice against the doctor, you must be able to establish that the doctor harmed you in some way that any other competent doctor would not have done under similar circumstances. Medical malpractice claim must adequately establish the fact that the doctor was not reasonably skillful and careful as deemed necessary to carry out adequate medical treatment.
The injury caused due to doctor’s negligence – Doctors treating patients with prior injuries compound the problem of patients to establish that the doctor’s negligence caused some injury. The question arises about how much the doctor is responsible for causing harm to the patient. If a patient suffering from some heart disease dies, then even if the doctor made some mistake in the treatment it is hard to distinguish if the death happened due to the disease or was a result of the doctor being negligent.
The link between injury and specific damages – Unless there is a direct link between the lapse on the part of the doctor and the harm caused by it is not possible to file a lawsuit for medical malpractice even if the doctor has underperformed. Only when the acts of the doctor cause injury that results in pain and suffering like mental anguish, additional medical expenses and loss of earning capacity by losing work that it becomes a case fit for suing the doctor for medical malpractice.
Types of common medical malpractices
Medical malpractices can be of so many kinds that it is difficult to make a list. However, all medical practices that can result in claims for compensation fall under one of these categories.
Inability to diagnose – If the doctor treating the patient fails to make a proper diagnosis of the illness and starts some wrong treatment it can become a case for medical negligence but with a condition. The patient must feel and be able to establish that some other competent doctor would have made a different diagnosis with a positive outcome.
Improper treatment – Doctors must follow set treatment protocols for specific diseases, but there are cases when the doctor misdiagnoses the conditions and start wrong treatment that no competent doctor would have done. Also, it might happen that despite diagnosing the disease correctly and even selecting the right treatment the doctor fails to administer it competently and hence could face a case of medical negligence.
Failure to caution patients of known risks – Duty of informed consent is a professional protocol that doctors must follow. It stipulates that doctors must share with the patient all information about the dangers known to them that are associated with the medical procedure or treatment. Making the patients aware of the possible risks helps them to take a well- informed decision. It may happen that they would not like to undergo the procedure or treatment at all. If the doctor fails to share the information with the patient and the treatment or medical procedure results in injury to the patient, it becomes a fit case for filing claim for compensation.
The above information should help you to decide the merit of your case and take the right decision about filing a lawsuit against the erring medical professionals.
In this case the Respondent had made an offer which was significantly more favourable to the Appellant than the outcome that the Appellant achieved at trial. However, the offer was not made under CPR Part 36 and therefore there were no automatic costs consequences (following F&C Alternative Investments (Holdings) Ltd v Barthelemy [2012] EWCA Civ 843). However, the offer was relevant under CPR Part 44 which obliges the court to consider all the circumstances of a case when deciding the order for costs. The court considered that although there might be some cases where the refusal to accept a reasonable offer was capable of justifying an award of indemnity costs, that situation would only arise where the failure to accept such an offer was itself unreasonable. In this case it was held that the Appellant’s conduct did not justify an order for indemnity costs and that part of the order was set aside.
The Respondent wanted to oppose an appeal against a possession order, both on the ground relied upon by the first instance judge in his judgment, and/or upon a different basis rejected by the judge at first instance. The Respondent had not filed a Respondent’s Notice to uphold the lower court’s decision “for reasons different from or additional to those given by the lower court“, as it was required to do by CPR 52.13.
The Respondent therefore had to make an oral application, at the appeal hearing, to file a Respondent’s Notice out of time. Dingemans J held that the Respondent was indeed required to file a Respondent’s Notice, and whether permission to file one out of time should be granted was governed by the principles set out in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906.
Despite the lateness of the application, it was granted. The breach was serious, and there was no good reason for it (the failure appeared to be founded upon the Respondent’s representatives’ misunderstanding of the function of a Respondent’s Notice and of CPR 52.13). However, the point had been ventilated previously and was taken by the Respondent in its skeleton argument, so the Claimant could not be said to be unaware of it; it was a point of pure law, so no further investigation was required in respect of it; and the Claimant’s representative were able to deal with it so there was no unfairness.
The Claimant was a casino which had extended credit to a customer who had been provided with a good credit reference by an employee of the Defendant bank. The customer defaulted, and the casino brought an action against the bank alleging that the employee had negligently misstated the customer’s creditworthiness in his reference. At the time of bringing that claim, the casino was aware that it may have a claim in deceit against the bank, but considered that such a claim would be speculative and weak. At trial, material emerged in cross-examination which would substantially support a claim in deceit.
The claim in negligence was lost – on appeal, on the basis that the bank owed no duty of care in negligence to the casino, since the casino was not the addressee, but the addressee’s undisclosed principal: [2018] UKSC 43. Following the loss in the Supreme Court, the casino sought to being a further claim, this time in deceit. The deceit claim was initially struck out as abusive, but the Court of Appeal overturned that decision, noting that: (a) the negligence claim was substantially different from the deceit claim; (b) there was a good reason for not bringing the deceit claim previously, namely that the evidence to support it was circumstantial and weak, and it would have been inappropriate to plead allegations of dishonesty on such a basis; (c) the casino had not been acting tactically or ‘keeping its powder dry’; and (d) it would be a “rare case where the litigation of an issue which has not previously been decided between the same parties or their privies will amount to an abuse of process“.
At a trial of the preliminary issues, Mr Justice Soole noted that the CJEU had made it “unequivocal that the obligation of compulsory insurance extends to the use of vehicles on private land”. Crucially, he went on to find that the MIB was an “emanation of the state” for the purposes of the Insurance Directives. He considered that Farrell v Whitty (No.2) (C-413/15) [2018] 3 WLR 285 had superseded the reasoning in Byrne v MIB [2009] QB 66 and the observations of Hobhouse LJ in Mighell v Reading [1999] Lloyds Rep IR 30. Further, the MIB was liable to indemnify the Claimant at least to the minimum level of cover under Directive 2009/103/EC, which is EUR 1 000 000 per victim. The question of whether the European principle of equivalence in fact requires unlimited cover was raised late in the hearing and was not fully argued. As such, Mr Justice Soole went no further than to state that Article 3 had direct effect to the extent of at least the minimum requirement of EUR 1 000 000 per victim. Whether unlimited cover is indeed required remains to be seen.
In (1) LXA (2) BXL v (1) Cynthia Willcox (As personal representative of the estate of Edward Willcox, Deceased) (2) Cynthia Willcox[2018] EWHC 2256 (QB), issues of questioning by the court in the absence of a party, s.33 of the Limitation Act 1980 and the valuation of damages in a historical child sexual abuse case were considered.
“(5) At any hearing where the court is taking evidence this may include–
“the extent to which the plaintiff acted promptly and reasonably once he knew whether or not the act or omission of the defendant, to which the injury was attributable, might be capable at that time of giving rise to an action for damages”.
“(2) In any civil proceedings in which by virtue of this section a person is proved to have been convicted of an offence by or before any court in the United Kingdom…–
(a)he shall be taken to have committed that offence unless the contrary is proved.”
4 Characteristics of Best Personal Injury Lawyer
Whenever you face a serious injury, it is important that you properly contact your insurance company to let them know how serious you are about it. For this purpose, you need to hire a good personal injury lawyer who will act as your representative in the court. The personal injury lawyer or the accident lawyer makes sure that your medical bills and other losses in the accident are compensated well by the insurance company.
Now, it is important that your personal injury lawyer is good enough to help you in such situation. If you are looking for a lawyer, in this case, we are going to share some of the most important caricaturists that good personal injury lawyers must have. These points will help you chose the best one for yourself.
It is important that you chose a personal injury lawyer who is available no matter which time of the day is. Moreover, your accident lawyer availability must be quick enough to help you at the right time when you need the services. In addition to this, your lawyer must have an efficient team that will keep you updated about the progress of your case. This supporting team will them help the personal injury lawyer focus more on your case details rather than managing other things.
It is indeed the most important characteristic of a personal injury lawyer. Professionalism includes proper care and attention of lawyer to your case. This will increase the chances that your case will be resolved in a very short time. The lawyers at renowned law firms, such as Personal Injury Lawerys at Hutchison & Stoy, are very professional and take their client’s case very seriously, that’s why they are successful. This is the main reason why a personal injury lawyer must be professional because it builds their reputation and ultimately leads the overall firm towards success.
One more important characteristic of a successful personal injury lawyer that one must look into is the record of success. This shows that how well he can work and negotiate with your insurance company for the compensation of your losses during the accident. The history of successful compensations for their clients reflects that they are credible also and that you can trust them.
The last and another important characteristic that your personal injury lawyer must have is his sincerity towards your case. Your lawyer must be sincere enough with you to tell you all the good and the bad things that are likely to happen in your case. In this way, you will stay informed about your case and stay calm that you are processing in the right way. This will help you avoid the unnecessary anxiety that you would otherwise face when your lawyer does not share anything with you.
Keeping in mind the above description of the best characteristics of a personal injury lawyer, you can choose the best one for yourself. Do a little more research related to it and evaluate all the accident lawyers’ options available.
July 26, 2018 · Editorial Team	· Comments Closed
The Claimant insurer brought tort of deceit and committal proceedings arising out of an alleged accident in March 2013. The Claimant had settled the pre-accident value of the Defendant’s vehicle in the sum of £14,000 and the Defendant had brought further claims for PI and hire of a replacement vehicle. These damages were assessed in the sum of £75,000. In 2014 the Claimant undertook internet research which indicated that the Claimant’s Insured and the Defendant knew each other prior to the accident. In a witness statement the Defendant had asserted he did not know the Insured, but at the time of the trial he accepted that this was untrue. The Claimant’s case was that the accident was staged. After a two-day trial in the High Court, Teare J held that UKI had made out its case against Mr Gentry. The Court concluded that, when stepping back and assessing all of the evidence, it was suggestive that the collision was staged. The Defendant and the Insured knew each other and neither had informed UKI, even when the 2014 information came to light. In addition, the Insured’s vehicle was very old and the Defendant chose not to give evidence at the trial. The Court had the required evidence to conclude that the Claimant had made out its case.
LOCOG appealed against a finding of a Recorder that a Claimant was not fundamentally dishonest for the purposes of section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. The Claimant brought a claim for personal injuries caused whilst he was volunteering at the Olympic Games. The Recorder found that the Claimant had been dishonest in fabricating invoices and exaggerating a claim for gardening services, but did not find that the dishonesty was fundamental, as it was the product of ‘muddled, confused and careless’ case preparation. On appeal, it was held that the Recorder had erred. He had elided the tests for fundamental dishonesty and whether this would cause substantial injustice to the Claimant. The Claimant had acted dishonestly in relation to a substantial part of the claim in a way that adversely impacted the Defendant. The Schedule of Damages contained dishonest misstatements which were fundamentally dishonest. The largest head of damage was supported by a dishonest witness statement and fabricated invoices. Both were premeditated and maintained. As a result of the finding of fundamental dishonesty the claim, valued at some £26,000, was struck out and the Claimant ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs of the action and appeal on the indemnity basis.
Gary Matthews Lawyers contact us about how to get a no win no fee solicitors review for your road traffic accident claim.
For Consultation, Call Solicitors Specialising In Wills. SCL Wills and Probate can help you contest a Will or defend a claim if you are an executor.
Express Solicitors - Specialist medical negligence solicitors.
Visit Blackwater Law for cosmetic surgery claims.
Complaint against solicitor? Contact Lamb & Co on 0800 085 1755 today.
finding solicitors for accident claims can be difficult, go somewhere well known