In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff must prove that the doctor’s actions, or lack of action qualified as actionable negligence, and caused the injury suffered by the patient.
What is the difference between simple neglect and actionable neglect?
Actionable neglect represents a failure to perform a legal duty, or a failure to perform that duty in a satisfactory manner. Injury Lawyer in Sault Ste. Marie knows that actionable negligence can involve carelessness, but it is more than simple carelessness.
In addition, the damage done by the person charged with actionable neglect must be substantial. Someone that suffered no more than a slight discomfort during a procedure could not charge the performing physician with medical malpractice.
How would a jury determine whether or not a doctor had performed a procedure in a satisfactory manner?
A jury would need to hear testimony from another physician, one that had received the same level of training as the doctor that had been charged with medical malpractice.
Why might it prove difficult for a plaintiff’s attorney to locate a doctor that would be able to give effective testimony?
The doctor’s explanation has to be one that members of the jury can understand. If the testimony escapes their understanding, then it has no value. In other words, the jury would be expected to act as if it had never heard to hard-to-understand testimony.
What are the 2 biggest challenges facing a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case?
The first of those concerns getting a jury to believe that a member of the medical profession could be capable of committing an act of negligence. Most men and women trust their doctor. Consequently, it becomes hard for any one of them to believe that a trusted member of the medical profession could become so overworked, or so focused on a personal concern, that he or she could be extremely neglectful.
The other challenge involves getting the jury to understand the exact nature of the doctor’s mistake. Achievement of that goal calls for presentation of good testimony from someone that has education and skills that match those of the doctor.
A good lawyer should have access to members of the medical community that could help him to find such witnesses. Still, that access does not always guarantee the discovery of someone that can offer an understandable testimony. Some doctors use a great deal of jargon in their statement.
Juries do not want to hear a lot of jargon. A jargon-filled statement might push them to rule in the favor of the defendant. The plaintiff’s attorney would have failed to explain to that 12-person body the nature of the mistake that was committed by the defendant. Hence, the jury would feel like declaring the defendant innocent.