Comments for Medical Malpractice Attorney http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com A Medical Malpractice Attorney is a Lawyer that specializes in medical negligence and assists people in getting damages awarded for their hardship Fri, 11 Nov 2011 05:58:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 Comment on Q&A: Does anyone know a good Medical Malpractice Attorney? Must be in TN or a contiguous state? by Mark H http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/qa-does-anyone-know-a-good-medical-malpractice-attorney-must-be-in-tn-or-a-contiguous-state/#comment-157 Mark H Fri, 11 Nov 2011 05:58:48 +0000 http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/qa-does-anyone-know-a-good-medical-malpractice-attorney-must-be-in-tn-or-a-contiguous-state/#comment-157 Do a google search using the search string: medical malpractice attorney tennessee I got plenty of hits just a moment ago. Do a google search using the search string:
medical malpractice attorney tennessee

I got plenty of hits just a moment ago.

]]> Comment on What do you think about medical malpractice awards? by NZ curious spectator http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/what-do-you-think-about-medical-malpractice-awards/#comment-154 NZ curious spectator Sun, 30 Oct 2011 04:55:42 +0000 http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/what-do-you-think-about-medical-malpractice-awards/#comment-154 No. The reality is that the publicity about medical malpractice has been a disservice to many patients and probably been bad for health care. According to a peer-reviewed study by (I think Harvard Medical School), fewer than 5% of victims of malpractice act on a claim. The few that do must find a doctor familiar with the area of practice in the community to review the claim and say that it has merit before they can even go forward. This is really hard, even for the best claim, and the money outlay is significant. Then they have to get through aggressive discovery by the insurance company, which can look into every aspect of the patient's life. Then they have to get past an opportunity for the Judge to throw it out. Then they have to prove to a jury of usually 12 people that they were harmed by negligence, and they must prove damages. They don't get anything for attorneys' fees unless they show the doctor was reckless or malicious. If the jury makes an award, which more than half don't, the Judge can reduce the award, but not increase it, or disregard the jury and throw it out. Then they have to survive one or two appeals. Nobody knows how much the malpractice insurers are making, and they have a bizarre exemption from the antitrust laws that normally prohibit price fixing. Premiums have gone up, while claims and awards have gone down. "Defensive medicine" only seems to be practiced on people who can pay, so there is some doubt that liability is a cause rather than a pretext for the providers to make more money. Contrary to suspicion you may have, I am not a malpractice lawyer. I have never handled a Plaintiff's malpractice claim, although I occasionally work for doctors. I am a lawyer by profession, but I work more as an economist. I started off believing that we have a problem with malpractice claims, delved into it, and changed my opinion 180 degrees. Problem in our society is that there is no PR campaign for people hurt by occasional careless doctors or hospitals. No.

The reality is that the publicity about medical malpractice has been a disservice to many patients and probably been bad for health care.

According to a peer-reviewed study by (I think Harvard Medical School), fewer than 5% of victims of malpractice act on a claim. The few that do must find a doctor familiar with the area of practice in the community to review the claim and say that it has merit before they can even go forward. This is really hard, even for the best claim, and the money outlay is significant. Then they have to get through aggressive discovery by the insurance company, which can look into every aspect of the patient’s life. Then they have to get past an opportunity for the Judge to throw it out. Then they have to prove to a jury of usually 12 people that they were harmed by negligence, and they must prove damages. They don’t get anything for attorneys’ fees unless they show the doctor was reckless or malicious. If the jury makes an award, which more than half don’t, the Judge can reduce the award, but not increase it, or disregard the jury and throw it out. Then they have to survive one or two appeals.

Nobody knows how much the malpractice insurers are making, and they have a bizarre exemption from the antitrust laws that normally prohibit price fixing. Premiums have gone up, while claims and awards have gone down. “Defensive medicine” only seems to be practiced on people who can pay, so there is some doubt that liability is a cause rather than a pretext for the providers to make more money.

Contrary to suspicion you may have, I am not a malpractice lawyer. I have never handled a Plaintiff’s malpractice claim, although I occasionally work for doctors. I am a lawyer by profession, but I work more as an economist. I started off believing that we have a problem with malpractice claims, delved into it, and changed my opinion 180 degrees. Problem in our society is that there is no PR campaign for people hurt by occasional careless doctors or hospitals.

]]> Comment on Would an expert witness bother to set up a consultation with my attorney if he didn’t think there was a case? by DARMON G http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/would-an-expert-witness-bother-to-set-up-a-consultation-with-my-attorney-if-he-didnt-think-there-was-a-case/#comment-152 DARMON G Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:45:07 +0000 http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/would-an-expert-witness-bother-to-set-up-a-consultation-with-my-attorney-if-he-didnt-think-there-was-a-case/#comment-152 Hey Dude, You got to wake up and jus look at the reality of the situation, law is all about what you can prove in a court of law. So,the first obvious thing is that the doctor or hospital involved is trying to find out how much your attorney knows about the situation i.e. what he/she can prove so make sure he/she has done thier research about the situation at hand, and what laws have been broken in this situation. Hey Dude,
You got to wake up and jus look at the reality of the situation, law is all about what you can prove in a court of law. So,the first obvious thing is that the doctor or hospital involved is trying to find out how much your attorney knows about the situation i.e. what he/she can prove so make sure he/she has done thier research about the situation at hand, and what laws have been broken in this situation.

]]> Comment on Would an expert witness bother to set up a consultation with my attorney if he didn’t think there was a case? by dracul_vladtepish http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/would-an-expert-witness-bother-to-set-up-a-consultation-with-my-attorney-if-he-didnt-think-there-was-a-case/#comment-151 dracul_vladtepish Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:40:08 +0000 http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/would-an-expert-witness-bother-to-set-up-a-consultation-with-my-attorney-if-he-didnt-think-there-was-a-case/#comment-151 There is always the possibility of a case. Doctors/surgeons/attorneys don't decide whether malpractice/negligence or something else has been committed. This decision is made by a judge who listens to the testimony of witnesses and other experts and makes a decision according to the law of the land. So you understand the difference, a witness is someone who actually physically saw/heard/felt the event take place. They are said to have witnessed it. An expert is an unbiased person who has been trained in a certain field and is giving the court their expert opinion. The surgeon who is being paid to look at your records and testify probably has been practicing medicine for several years and can testify to the how and why something in medicine might occur because he/she is an expert when it comes to a certain type of medicine. Ask your attorney to explain the differences in more detail the next time you see him/her. There is always the possibility of a case. Doctors/surgeons/attorneys don’t decide whether malpractice/negligence or something else has been committed. This decision is made by a judge who listens to the testimony of witnesses and other experts and makes a decision according to the law of the land.
So you understand the difference, a witness is someone who actually physically saw/heard/felt the event take place. They are said to have witnessed it.
An expert is an unbiased person who has been trained in a certain field and is giving the court their expert opinion.
The surgeon who is being paid to look at your records and testify probably has been practicing medicine for several years and can testify to the how and why something in medicine might occur because he/she is an expert when it comes to a certain type of medicine.

Ask your attorney to explain the differences in more detail the next time you see him/her.

]]> Comment on Would an expert witness bother to set up a consultation with my attorney if he didn’t think there was a case? by Dan S http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/would-an-expert-witness-bother-to-set-up-a-consultation-with-my-attorney-if-he-didnt-think-there-was-a-case/#comment-150 Dan S Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:26:02 +0000 http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/would-an-expert-witness-bother-to-set-up-a-consultation-with-my-attorney-if-he-didnt-think-there-was-a-case/#comment-150 Expert's often get paid for their opinion, the surgeon could be charging a consulting fee. Also some experts can bias there testimony in the direction that the lawyer wants them to go. Medical evidence is not always black and white. The lawyer will tell you if he has a case before he precedes. You can also call him to see what his opinion in the case is. Expert’s often get paid for their opinion, the surgeon could be charging a consulting fee.

Also some experts can bias there testimony in the direction that the lawyer wants them to go. Medical evidence is not always black and white. The lawyer will tell you if he has a case before he precedes. You can also call him to see what his opinion in the case is.

]]> Comment on Suing a lawyer for malpractice? by me http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/suing-a-lawyer-for-malpractice/#comment-145 me Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:16:09 +0000 http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/suing-a-lawyer-for-malpractice/#comment-145 SO, you got the bill on 2009, and in 2010 you read, approved, and signed a settlement without doing the math???????? Don't waste your time (and more money.) You can't win based on your explanation. SO, you got the bill on 2009, and in 2010 you read, approved, and signed a settlement without doing the math????????

Don’t waste your time (and more money.) You can’t win based on your explanation.

]]> Comment on Suing a lawyer for malpractice? by divot II http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/suing-a-lawyer-for-malpractice/#comment-144 divot II Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:16:00 +0000 http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/suing-a-lawyer-for-malpractice/#comment-144 Why don't you say when you received the bill? It seems relevant. Why don’t you say when you received the bill? It seems relevant.

]]> Comment on Suing a lawyer for malpractice? by KC V ™ http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/suing-a-lawyer-for-malpractice/#comment-143 KC V ™ Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:30:44 +0000 http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/suing-a-lawyer-for-malpractice/#comment-143 Suing lawyers is extremely difficult...especially from what I'm reading in your post. Because a medical bill took time to catch up doesn't mean the lawyer was negligent. I would speak to a different attorney to get their opinion but I'm willing to bet you won't find one willing to take on your case! The only other option that comes to mind is writing a letter to your state bar association. Suing lawyers is extremely difficult…especially from what I’m reading in your post.

Because a medical bill took time to catch up doesn’t mean the lawyer was negligent.

I would speak to a different attorney to get their opinion but I’m willing to bet you won’t find one willing to take on your case!

The only other option that comes to mind is writing a letter to your state bar association.

]]> Comment on how do I ask the right questions in court- involving an aggravated disability claim? by One http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/how-do-i-ask-the-right-questions-in-court-involving-an-aggravated-disability-claim/#comment-140 One Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:06:55 +0000 http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/how-do-i-ask-the-right-questions-in-court-involving-an-aggravated-disability-claim/#comment-140 Find an attorney that specializes in disability claims. They usually work on contingent basis. No up front money. If you are representing yourself, you have to know all the rules of hearing. Find an attorney that specializes in disability claims. They usually work on contingent basis. No up front money. If you are representing yourself, you have to know all the rules of hearing.

]]> Comment on how do I ask the right questions in court- involving an aggravated disability claim? by monarchfly7 http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/how-do-i-ask-the-right-questions-in-court-involving-an-aggravated-disability-claim/#comment-139 monarchfly7 Tue, 25 Oct 2011 06:18:43 +0000 http://www.medicalmalpracticeattorneyinfo.com/how-do-i-ask-the-right-questions-in-court-involving-an-aggravated-disability-claim/#comment-139 find out if there is an attorney who would accept your case on a contingency fee basis; you don't pay your attorney unless he/she wins the case. negligence has many different aspects. check with your state bar association for attorneys who will work on cases like these. find out if there is an attorney who would accept your case on a contingency fee basis; you don’t pay your attorney unless he/she wins the case. negligence has many different aspects. check with your state bar association for attorneys who will work on cases like these.

]]>