ERDoc Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 Sue them! for all medical bills and gross negligence. their negligence put you at risk of "really dangerous" problems as the other doctor put it. so yeah im sure he didnt document that he called you a hypocondriact. id sue him the doctor over him the hospital and the medschool. And this is why the US medical system is in such disarray. What are you going to sue them for? If you are going to say medical malpractice, please tell me the four elements for a medical malpractice case and demonstrate them in Dwayne's situation.
Just Plain Ruff Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) Sue them! for all medical bills and gross negligence. their negligence put you at risk of "really dangerous" problems as the other doctor put it. so yeah im sure he didnt document that he called you a hypocondriact. id sue him the doctor over him the hospital and the medschool. Good God Mario, get a freaking Grip. Take a step back, take a deep breath and stop drinking the Kool Aid of the medical malpractice commercials. Now answer ER Doc's questions. Edited February 5, 2013 by Captain ToHellWithItAll
Mario1105 Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) Failure to Treat When a healthcare provider fails to treat a patient, there may be liability for medical malpractice. Failure to treat can occur in a variety of circumstances, including failures to perform medical tests, treat a known medical condition or advise the patient to see a specialist when necessary. Medical Malpractice When a healthcare provider fails to act as a provider in the same specialty would, a person who sustains injuries may be able to sue the provider for medical malpractice. Compensation may include damages for medical costs, lost wages, pain and suffering and attorney fees. Sponsored Links Read more: Medical Malpractice for Failure to Treat | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_6814151_medical-malpractice-failure-treat.html#ixzz2K3JAfol4 just saying. why should he have to pay for something that another doctor failed to treat? should the doctor not be held accountable? what if dwayne had died? why should he not be held accountable? Edited February 5, 2013 by Mario1105
ERDoc Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 OK, you partially answered the question. So, what injuries did Dwayne sustain? I think you are confusing two concepts here. I agree that he should not have to pay the bill but there is a difference between not paying the bill and suing for malpractice. Do you really think we should be able to sue anyone for what-ifs? Yes, he should also be held accountable, but there is a difference between holding someone accountable and suing them for malpractice. Again, the four requirements of a malpractice suit are very cut and dry. What are they and where did they happen in Dwayne's case?
Just Plain Ruff Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) You didn't answer ERDocs question though. He specifically asked you the 4 elements of medical malpractice and apply them to Dwaynes situation. And what if Dwayne had died, but he didn't. It's awful nice that you have Dwaynes best interests at heart but what are the 4 elements to a successful case? edit: was typing as Doc was submitting. My daughter was misdiagnosed with not having RSV but was treated appropriately with antibiotics and breathing treatments, should I sue her doctor for misdiagnosing her? Is that malpractice? Edited February 5, 2013 by Captain ToHellWithItAll
ERDoc Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 My daughter was misdiagnosed with not having RSV but was treated appropriately with antibiotics and breathing treatments, should I sue her doctor for misdiagnosing her? Yes, because RSV is a virus and should never be treated with antibiotics so not only was she misdiagnosed but she was treated inappropriately (I joke about the malpractice part but the rest is true).
Mario1105 Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 i still see it under failure to treat. they never even ran blood work. Medical malpractice has the following four essential elements. All four of these elements must be proven for malpractice to be established. [1] Duty of care resulting from a relationship between the patient and the caregiver. Associated with this is a minimal "standard of care" (duty of care). The question here is "Did the caregiver agree to treat the patient?" If the answer is YES, then an appropriate degree of skill and competence is required (the minimal standard of care). In addition, there may be instances where the caregiver has a duty to persons other than the patient. For example, should a patient suffer an epileptic seizure that leads to an accident to others (as in a car accident), the caregiver may be liable for their injuries as a result of failing to diagnose the patient's epilepsy or for not warning the patient against driving when the diagnosis of epilepsy was established. [2] Breach of that standard of care by caregiver (breech of duty) This is usually established by expert court testimony that defines what the acceptable standard of care is and that explains how the caregiver did not provide that care. Of course, expert witnesses for the other side will argue the exact opposite. [3] Injury to the patient This is often easy to establish, as in when the patient has had the wrong kidney removed, but it can be more difficult to establish, for instance, when the injury is psychological. [4] Proof of the injury was caused by the breach of care (proximate cause) Proximate cause can be determined by asking if the patient would have been harmed in the absence of the caregiver's actions. For example, would a patient undergoing an appendectomy have been harmed if the surgeon had not left a sponge in the patient's addomen? If the answer is NO, then the surgeon's actions are deemed to have caused harm to the patient, and thus fit the causation requirements. A person accused of malpractice can mount a defence by showing that one of the above four elements is missing. For instance, he or she may argue that the injury to the patient was preexisting and not caused by the caregiver. Common theories (types of claims) of malpractice include: 1) lack of appropriate care; 2) lack of informed consent; 3) negligent supervision; 4) patient abandonment etc. how about we file it under lack of appropriate care and call it a day?
Just Plain Ruff Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) Yes, because RSV is a virus and should never be treated with antibiotics so not only was she misdiagnosed but she was treated inappropriately (I joke about the malpractice part but the rest is true). She also had bronchitis with it so the antibiotics were to cover both. This was her GP who prescribed the antibiotics for both. Didn't mean to leave that part out. She got better after about a week. It's not the first time we've had issues with this doctor or group and we are in the process of seeking new physicians. i still see it under failure to treat. they never even ran blood work. Medical malpractice has the following four essential elements. All four of these elements must be proven for malpractice to be established. [1] Duty of care resulting from a relationship between the patient and the caregiver. Associated with this is a minimal "standard of care" (duty of care). The question here is "Did the caregiver agree to treat the patient?" If the answer is YES, then an appropriate degree of skill and competence is required (the minimal standard of care). In addition, there may be instances where the caregiver has a duty to persons other than the patient. For example, should a patient suffer an epileptic seizure that leads to an accident to others (as in a car accident), the caregiver may be liable for their injuries as a result of failing to diagnose the patient's epilepsy or for not warning the patient against driving when the diagnosis of epilepsy was established. [2] Breach of that standard of care by caregiver (breech of duty) This is usually established by expert court testimony that defines what the acceptable standard of care is and that explains how the caregiver did not provide that care. Of course, expert witnesses for the other side will argue the exact opposite. [3] Injury to the patient This is often easy to establish, as in when the patient has had the wrong kidney removed, but it can be more difficult to establish, for instance, when the injury is psychological. [4] Proof of the injury was caused by the breach of care (proximate cause) Proximate cause can be determined by asking if the patient would have been harmed in the absence of the caregiver's actions. For example, would a patient undergoing an appendectomy have been harmed if the surgeon had not left a sponge in the patient's addomen? If the answer is NO, then the surgeon's actions are deemed to have caused harm to the patient, and thus fit the causation requirements. A person accused of malpractice can mount a defence by showing that one of the above four elements is missing. For instance, he or she may argue that the injury to the patient was preexisting and not caused by the caregiver. Common theories (types of claims) of malpractice include: 1) lack of appropriate care; 2) lack of informed consent; 3) negligent supervision; 4) patient abandonment etc. how about we file it under lack of appropriate care and call it a day? Fair enough Mikey, this was a good review session that you gave us. Nice find. Yes lack of appropriate care is completely right. I would not go as far as saying it was malpractice but I certainly would be fighting the bill. Dwayne never did give us the outcome as to whether he paid the bill or not. My suspicion is with Dwayne Integrity, he is working some sort of agreement out with the clinic because he did indeed get treated although not very well, but he did get some treatment at least and that at least requires a modicum of payment. It is the right thing to do. Edited February 5, 2013 by Captain ToHellWithItAll
ERDoc Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 You are not going to get out of it that easy. You have the correct elements now. I think we all agree that there was a duty was owed and that duty was breached. Did that breach result in an injury? Did that injury result in damage? I think it would be hard to make an argument for either of those. Dwayne was not injured and did not suffer any damage as a result. Therefore, there is not a valid malpractice suit. You cannot sue someone for what could have happened. Should anyone who carries a loaded weapon into a building where it is legal (let's put aside the current gun debate of where it should/shouldn't be legal and just assume that it is legal) be arrested because what if their weapon had gone off and hit someone? Now if Dwayne's pain was from an MI and he died, it is a whole different story. An injury has occurred and damage has been done. This doctor is lucky that nothing did happen and sometimes luck is the only thing between being stupid and being malpractice. 1
ChaseZ Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 Sue them! for all medical bills and gross negligence. their negligence put you at risk of "really dangerous" problems as the other doctor put it. so yeah im sure he didnt document that he called you a hypocondriact. id sue him the doctor over him the hospital and the medschool. I hope all of your patients treat you with the same courtesy and attempt to sue you into poverty every chance they get. I am in no way discrediting what happened to Dwayne but there is a difference between reporting questionable practices / billing and attempting to sue a provider for financial gain. This is why so many providers are crippled by fear of litigation
Recommended Posts