A physician has demonstrated negligence if he/she has deviated from the accepted medical standard.
The doctor’s negligence must cause harm, in order for the same doctor to be held liable for the resulting damages.
• If the doctor has made the patient’s condition worse, then he/she could be named at-fault.
• If the doctor’s actions have aided the development of complications, then he/sh could be named at-fault.
• The emergence of a need for unexpected and additional treatments would showcase the doctor’s negligence.
In a trial, the injury lawyer in Woodbridge for the plaintiff/patient would have to show that the observed harm was a foreseeable result of the doctor’s actions.
Doctors are supposed to follow established rules and practices. An expert witness should be someone that is familiar with the same rules and practices. That familiarity should support the veracity of the expert’s view/opinion.
An expert’s opinion should link the physician’s negligent behavior to a predictable result. In that way, the jury could better see how the doctor’s negligence had aided development of a foreseeable result.
When would a patient be unable to point to an outcome, and say that it had resulted from a physician’s negligent behavior?
Anytime that a doctor had followed the standard rules and regulations, but had not witnessed the expected results
Anytime that the medical community had been unable to create a protocol for treatment of a new and unstudied condition, a failed attempt at delivery of a treatment could not be called predictable.
If a doctor had ordered the proper medication and the proper dose, but someone in the pharmacy had made a mistake, the affected patient could not say that the doctor’s negligent actions were to blame for the unwanted result.
If a patient knew that he was allergic to a certain medication, but failed to mention that fact, and if the same patient’s doctor were to prescribe administration of antibiotics, the patient could not say that compliance of the doctor’s orders had created a foreseeable result.
Would theses events showcase instances of negligence?
A surgeon does an operation, after studying fluid that was drawn from a patient’s shunt. The drawing procedure triggers the spread of an infection, but the surgeon has gone on vacation. A different specialist must step in and carry out an emergency operation.
Some doctors in a university’s ophthalmology department have suggested a certain operation for one of the patients. Those same doctors know that the surgeon scheduled to do the operation will not be on hand for more than 2 weeks, following the surgery. There appears to have been no effort at planning for unexpected complications.
A patient receives antibiotics IV, even though it can affect the organ responsible for hearing.
