Charles E. Boyk Law Offices, LLC
In establishing liability in Toledo medical malpractice cases, the standard of care for the procedure must be established. Breach of that standard of care must also be established and that it resulted in permanent injuries. Experienced medical malpractice attorneys may try to obtain expert witness with the technical qualifications to explain the standard of the medical malpractice.
When determining liability in Toledo medical malpractice cases, lawyers would meet with the injured party, obtain the medical records, and have the case reviewed by a board certified witness in that area of specialization. Then that doctor would have to issue an affidavit and opinion in writing to show what the standard of care is for making that diagnosis with the individual in that situation. For example, in a situation where a young child was having stomach pain that was extremely serious and lasted for two or three days, they did an X-ray, and the pain did not go away in the abdominal area.
There could be all sorts of different problems when determining liability in Toledo medical malpractice cases for prescription cases. There have been cases where the doctor ordered the wrong prescription and as a result of ordering the wrong prescription, the patient suffered serious or permanent injury. That would be the fault of the doctor as a result of ordering the wrong prescription. At the same time, there have been situations where the doctor ordered the right prescription, but the pharmacy filled the wrong prescription. That becomes a case of negligence against the pharmacy.
Most likely the doctor would say that the standard of care would be the order of a CAT scan of the abdominal area and that the failure to not ordering a CAT scan and the resulting situation of the child having a bowel obstruction that would have been easily diagnosed with the CAT scan could be considered the departure of the standard of care.
There have been cases where the diagnosis was that the child had a large amount of gas and having a large amount of gas, the child had bowel obstruction. In that misdiagnosis, it would be based on the information, the standard of care, which would be to order a CAT scan. Failure to order a CAT scan would be a breach of the standard of care.
If the patient failed to read the warning and they signed it, they are still going to be held to the standard of implied knowledge that they should have read the document. The knowledge in the document would be implied to the patient. However, there may be an instance where the doctor may have done something wrong, but the warning indicated that if a person has certain symptoms they should immediately call the hospital or the doctor. If the patient does not follow the aftercare procedures, they could be considered to be partially or completely negligent for the resulting injury.
Patients can be used during trial to oppose witness statements, indicating that the patient followed all the procedures. They could use subsequent medical records, testimony of the patient, or potentially have nurses or medical providers that individual interacted with. A person could have somebody testify that when the patient signed the document that they were under medication and that it was not a knowingly intelligent signing of that waiver.
Common Liability Misconceptions About Malpractice
There are several common misconceptions in establishing liability in Toledo medical malpractice cases. One would be that there are a ton of medical malpractice cases that are easy and that attorneys file frivolous lawsuits. For example, an auto accident is relatively easy to prove liability, meaning responsibility for the situation, like if it is a rear end automobile accident or if somebody ran a red light. Medical malpractice cases are extremely complex and expensive to bring.
Medical malpractice attorneys are typically some of the highest paid and best defense attorneys. Out of the hundreds of calls for medical malpractice cases, lawyers typically make appointments with five out of a hundred and may only take three of those cases that they talk to. The reason for that are the expenses involved in them, the difficulty of proving the case, and the fact that a person has to have very substantial injury.