Each year, medical mistakes result in the death of more than 250,000 people across the U.S., according to a recent study by John Hopkins. This figure places medical error behind heart disease and cancer as the third leading cause of death in the country.
From surgical errors and poor postoperative care to medication errors and misdiagnosis, non-fatal medical errors can result in patients being left with potential complications, long-term pain and other injuries that can severely impact their quality of life. In many cases, these individuals may have recourse to legal action by filing a medical malpractice claim against the responsible party and seeking compensation for their injuries and losses.
Medical professionals charged with medical malpractice not only face financial consequences in the form of legal fees and potential damages, but also reputational damage which can have detrimental effects on their career and ability to practice again. To protect themselves against this possibility, it is important for these professionals to enlist the services of an experienced medical malpractice lawyer who can help them form a strong defense. In this article, we will review some common defenses that can help medical professionals refute or mitigate the claims brought against them in medical malpractice cases.
Respectable Minority Defense
Sometimes a medical professional may use a new or experimental form of treatment on a patient. Most practitioners may not elect such treatment as the risks may be less well known or even higher compared to conventional methods of treatment.
However, where a ‘respectable minority’ of medical professionals endorse such treatment or consider it an acceptable approach, this defense may be invoked to justify the professional’s actions and protect them from medical malpractice claims from a patient who was informed of the potential risks and agreed to undergo the treatment.
Comparative Negligence
While a medical professional may be found to be negligent in their provision of care, their liability may be reduced where the patient also contributed to their own injuries. Under the comparative negligence rule, where responsibility is shared between the parties, damages are apportioned accordingly. For example, if a plaintiff is found to be 30% at fault for their injuries due to disregarding their doctor’s post-surgery advice, they can only recover 70% of the total damages from the defendant.
In some states, a stricter application of this rule applies as per the principle of contributory negligence. This states that the plaintiff will be precluded from receiving any compensation where they were found to be partially at fault for their injuries, no matter how minor their fault.
Good Samaritan Law
Medical professionals are often called upon to voluntarily provide emergency assistance in urgent situations. The risk of injury or complication may be higher here as the individual is often acting without full information or access to their usual medical tools and equipment.
The Good Samaritan law acts as a shield to protect them from claims of medical negligence in cases where they make a mistake or unintentionally injure the person they are assisting. This provides medical professionals with peace of mind, ensuring they continue to act in such scenarios without fear of legal liability.
By employing one or more of these defenses, medical practitioners may mitigate their liability or avoid it altogether.
