Is there a difference between negligence and malpractice?
152379
neg·li·gence (nĕg'lĭ-jəns) \nn.\nThe state or quality of being negligent.\nA negligent act or a failure to act.\nLaw. Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.\n\nmal·prac·tice (măl-prăk'tĭs) \nn.\nImproper or negligent treatment of a patient, as by a physician, resulting in injury, damage, or loss.\nImproper or unethical conduct by the holder of a professional or official position.\nThe act or an instance of improper practice.
27924
Yes. If you are out to prove that your injuries were the result of negligence by management, you are going to have to prove that your working conditions and those of other people who have similar job assignments inevitably lead to those surgeries. If however, you are the only one who keeps needing surgeries and everyone else is fine, then management can reasonably argue that you are simply a klutz and incompetence on your part is the primary cause of your injuries.
968526
Registered Nurse here; Well I dislike the sound of my own advice.  However if your condition is truly a result of blood being drawn, you best avenue is to SUE, this is malpractice, and people in health care must be held accountable when they make mistakes.  As for the physician, he or she should not try to avoid the error and should address it with you open and honestly.  You should not have to pay for any of your surgeries related to this error, nor should your insurance company.  I strongly advise you to seek an attorney that specializes in malpractice.  Also you may want to consider getting another physician, if you feel they are not treating you with dignity, respect and cognitive of care that your entitled to.
1012893
I am sorry about your mother. God bless her soul. \n\nMalpractice cannot be blamed on the surgeon if he or she does not have the full medical background of the patient. It helps the surgeon to know the full background of a patient because something may go awry in the surgery if the surgeon does not have that information prior to it.
251209
There are a lot of cases that revolve around medical malpractice. I've even seen a lot of law firms that employee both doctors and lawyers, or people that specialize in both. Having both skills (law and medical), as difficult as that can be, can also yield a higher rate of understanding between the two fields. In a law firm, that means more money and more clients, and a higher success rate.
1184882
As a solicitor who specialises in dental negligence claims on a daily basis in the UK, my own opinion is that it would be difficult to sue your dentist if he/she made an immediate referral to an oral surgeon.  This would be the accepted practice.  \n\nIt could be argued that the dentist should have taken an x-ray and then made an assessment before starting to extract, and this may be negligence if this was not done.  \n\nAlthough yours is a straighforward claim, this one would be quite tricky to prove any negligence.
940823
Hello,\n\nHere is the link for a website about medical malpractice.\n\nHere is all I could find on worker's compensation.\n\nHope this helps you....................................  : - O
466767
There shouldn't be any amount of time you have to wait.  In fact, the only laws that you should be wary of are statute of limitations laws.  Those are laws that prevent you from bringing a malpractice suit if you wait to long.  If you feel that there was malpractice, see an attorney right away.
1121538
yes......such as medical, trespass, insurance? what exactly do you need to know?\na TORT is a civil wrong for which the victim receives compensation in the forms of damages.
464935
No it is not a Malpractice as you put it !\nRather its a good practice and the hygienic way to go about !\nAnd on top of everything you reduce your body odors if you keep the hair shaved
498324
Barristral Immunity is becoming a issue: In commonwealth countries there is a tendency to say no immunity in civil cases in negligent preparation. The real issue is that : whether it would run the risk of double jeopardy. Its very hard to see the differences between a lawyer and other professional persons. Again this is a negligence issue and there is a general shift away from such immunity. Personally I'm all for it, not because its fair but because I'm a law student and it is in my best interest to keep it.
1181171
Doctors and other professionals can only be held liable if you can prove gross negligence.\n\nAdministering drugs to a patient who has been advised of the possibilities of side effects is not gross negligence, nor should it be defined as such.
95934
Sounds like you might have the right to sue for malpractice.
982014
My opinion - the EASIEST, FASTEST solution would be making punititve damage awards EXEMPT from attorny contingencies.  \n\nDoctors don't HAVE to be at fault, especially obstetritions.  From PERSONAL experience with med mal claims, the nightmare is always a DEAD BABY.  Juries ALWAYS find against the doctor with a dead baby, REGARDLESS of fault.  Insurance companies don't even try to fight those claims, they just offer out the policy limits, because a jury will ALWAYS side against the doctor.
169676
It is very hard to prove medical malpractice because let's face it, docs have the money for the good attorneys. But you should start with a medical malpractice attorney who should be able to tell you if you have a legitimate case or not.
22290
That all depends on the state, since each state is responsible for licensing their own physicians. The source below has a form to search for malpractice claims against Oregon physicians, for instance. Find the website for your state's licensing agency and they may very well have such an ability as well.
234953
Yes, it is.  Because the act of suing is holding the doctor accountable for his actions, rather inaction.