It should come as no surprise that most doctors have a real motivation to help patients, and they take great pride in their work. So, facing a medical malpractice lawsuit can be an extremely frustrating experience for a doctor, in terms of their personal liability and their professional reputation. Not to mention that doctors want to spend their time treating patients, not answering questions from lawyers who have never set foot in medical school.
This article will answer three basic questions about medical malpractice defense:
While it's no picnic when it happens to you, it may help to know that medical malpractice lawsuits are very common. According to a study by the American Medical Association (titled "Medical Liability Claim Frequency: A 2007-2008 Snapshot of Physicians") 42% of doctors had faced a malpractice claim at some point in their careers. The same report also found that 65% of medical malpractice claims are dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. So, being sued for malpractice certainly does not mean that the doctor did anything wrong or will be held liable for medical negligence.
It is important that the doctor have patience and allow the lawsuit process to work. Many medical malpractice cases last 2-5 years. That can be a long time for a malpractice claim to be hanging over a doctor's head, but there is little a doctor can do to accelerate the process.
Assuming the doctor carries medical malpractice insurance, the insurance company's lawyer will handle most of the heavy lifting throughout the case, but there are four major things that the doctor should expect to do during the course of the case.
First, the doctor will have a discussion with the insurance company's lawyer. The doctor should give a full candid account of the circumstances of the patient's case, the treatment provided, and any other interactions between the doctor and the patient. In some cases, this conversation may occur several months or even a few years after the doctor treated the patient. After that length of time, it is common for the doctor's memory to be patchy, so the doctor should not be concerned if he or she cannot remember all of the details. That's what medical records and treatment notes are for.
Second, the doctor will have to answer interrogatories. This is a series of questions written by the patient's attorney requesting information about the patient's treatment and other aspects of the case. The insurance company's lawyer will draft the final answers, but the lawyer will probably ask the doctor to assist in providing information to ensure accuracy.
Third, the doctor will be deposed. The doctor will meet (usually in the conference room at a law firm or at the doctor's office) with the lawyers from both sides and a court reporter. The lawyers will ask the doctor questions under oath (with the patient's lawyer doing most of the questioning). The court reporter will record the answers, creating a transcript of the deposition. Depositions can take several hours, depending on the complexity of the case.
Fourth, if the case goes to trial, the doctor will probably testify in front of the jury.
Three of the most common defense strategies in medical malpractice cases are:
Rejection of Expert Testimony.
The defendant might argue that the plaintiff's expert is not qualified to express an expert opinion on a particular topic, or that the expert's opinion is not sufficiently based on accepted scientific principles to be considered reliable.
If the defendant convinces the judge that the plaintiff's expert is insufficiently qualified or that the expert's testimony is unreliable, the judge will prevent the expert from testifying. In most cases, that decision will prevent the plaintiff from proving their case.
Reduction or Elimination of Damages.
In some situations, a doctor might be able to ignore the issue of whether a mistake was made and focus completely on whether the patient was harmed. If the patient cannot show any significant harm, the doctor might technically lose the case while only having to pay minimal damages.
Absence of Causation.
This argument can arise in cases involving a missed diagnosis, where the doctor initially failed to identify a terminal condition. If it's true that if the doctor had properly diagnosed the patient, the death would have occurred anyway, and there was no treatment that would have improved the patient's condition or provided comfort, it may be possible to eliminate any causal link between the doctor's error and any actual harm resulting from it.
See the next page for more detail on these defenses.
1 | 2