When you’re faced with any kind of legal action, the decision to hire an attorney or go it alone and represent yourself is one that should be weighed very carefully. In particular, you might focus on two key questions: What is at stake? And how complex is the legal territory? Let’s look at both of those questions in the context of a medical malpractice case.
Many people don’t bring a meritorious lawsuit against their doctor because of fear concerning family and friends. Only you can decide for yourself whether bringing a lawsuit against your physician is the right thing for you to do. Only you know the pain and suffering that you have endured – nobody else. Only you know the extent of your lost wages, medical bills, and injury.
The study recommended reforming the system by increasing funding for legal services, so attorneys could be compensated for their time; making defendants who lose a case pay the plaintiff's attorney fees; or sending malpractice complaints to an administrative system with neutral adjudicators and medical experts so patients wouldn't need an attorney.
Tennessee used to require plaintiffs to prove physical effects from the stress in order to receive compensation. But in this case, the court outlined a more nuanced set of criteria for determining emotional distress. The ruling listed six factors for consideration when deciding to award damages for the intentional or negligent infliction of emotional stress:
Malpractice lawyers decline cases because potential compensation doesn’t justify legal costs, Knutsen says. It only makes sense to accept “high-value cases,” meaning those with potentially big claims. The decision rests on the “entirely distasteful” exercise of calculating the value of a life. “It’s cheaper to kill someone than to maim them. In our legal system, as long as you are alive, you have a claim for income loss and pain and suffering. If you’re dead, those claims expire,” Knutsen says.
Mike Broemmel began writing in 1982. He is an author/lecturer with two novels on the market internationally, "The Shadow Cast" and "The Miller Moth." Broemmel served on the staff of the White House Office of Media Relations. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in journalism and political science from Benedictine College and a Juris Doctorate from Washburn University. He also attended Brunel University, London.
The mother filed a lawsuit against the theme park, alleging that her son’s “skin had a negative reaction to the paint used on his face at Legoland that has caused him great pain and suffering, as well as two years of humiliation by other child and deep emotional distress.” They are seeking more than $15,000 in damages for Legoland’s alleged negligence and for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Disclaimer- The information you obtain at our web-site or through postings on such sites as this is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for specific advice regarding your individual situation. Any response given here is not intended to create, nor does it create an ongoing duty to respond to questions. The response does not form an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to be relied upon as legal advice. The response given is based upon the limited facts provided by the person asking the question. To the extent additional or different facts exist, the response might possibly change.
“Richard was very helpful from the beginning. He handled our car accident case with such responsibility and punctuality. Throughout the case, Richard checked in often, as did his wonderful staff at the Law Office of Cohen & Jaffe, LLP. I must have called the office a hundred times to ask questions pertaining to my case, the staff was always prompt and incredibly nice. Richard and his team really made our experience as stress free as possible. Richard is very intelligent yet simple. His amazing team of experts including (Julia, Debbie, Ariel) helped us with everything, from appointments to filling out forms. I would recommend Cohen And Jaffe to anyone in need of a personal injury attorney.”
If there are too many intervening events and causes between the defendant’s actions and your injury, this will not qualify as immediate. For example, a woman who sued her husband for causing the death of their son in a car wreck was not allowed to proceed with her claim of emotional damages because she was not physically present during the wreck, even though she arrived at the hospital immediately after and witnessed her son being brought in as they were trying to resuscitate him.
I have this fantasy in which I am four years old again, and my screaming, raging bpd mother is looming over me and threatening to beat me with a heavy leather belt again, and I just very calmly fold my arms and say something like, "OK, lady. Fine. You take ONE step closer to me and I'm calling my lawyer. Your crazy ass is going to get hauled into jail for physically assaulting and battering a 4-year-old with a dangerous object. That's YEARS in prison, you fucking maniac. Just try it, I dare you."
As to what constitutes severe emotional distress, the courts here require that it rise above the level of temporary fright, regret or disappointment. Rather, the plaintiff must be able to show that they suffer from a severe and disabling emotional or mental disorder that mental health professionals generally recognize and diagnose, such as chronic depression, neurosis, psychosis or phobia.
When trying to determine if a doctor was negligent, your Nevada medical malpractice lawyer will want to see if your doctor followed what’s known as the “standard of care.” In essence, the standard of care is how a reasonable and competent healthcare professional would treat a similar patient under similar circumstances. This takes into account a patient’s age, gender, ethnicity and geographic area – all of which are factors that can affect one’s health and help a doctor diagnose a medical condition and come up with a treatment option.
Many people mistakenly choose to file medical malpractice lawsuits because they are unhappy with the results of their treatment. However, a poor result -- even death -- does not always equate to malpractice. Medicine is an inexact science. Even the most routine procedure can result in complications both foreseen and unforeseen. There are no guarantees that any treatment, no matter how commonplace, will be successful. As such, it is possible -- and even common when it comes to some procedures -- for doctors to do everything right and still fail to obtain a good result.