esentation for their damages than people who have always walked the straight and narrow and taken care of themselves to a great extent but are damaged nonetheless by bad medicine? I am a MA who has seen a mother sue the doctor I work for for birth injuries successfully. But then again maybe the baby wouldn't be so fragile if the mother wasn't a consistent user of crack throughout her life and pregnancy. Then recently one of my close associates was told that he needed to have a incidental finding on an mri taken out and it was and then it was found out that it was unnecessary and the procedure itself had complications, but no one wants to take his case and he's on his way to getting a phD and never smoked or done any other self destructive evil behavior in his life to jeopardize his health
Car / Auto Accident Lawyer
It is very difficult to successfully bring a medical malpractice case. Unless a case has birth liability and significant value a competent medical malpractice attorney is unlikely to take the case at all. There are probably factors present in both the cases that you refer to that you either are not privy to or do not understand and it would probably take an extensive review of the facts of both to explain it to you. I understand that you are upset for your co-worker but accept the fact that you are not aware of everything.
9 lawyers agree
Car / Auto Accident Lawyer
Whether so wine has "walked the straight and narrow" or not is not the overriding issue on whether they have a malpractice claim. I am sorry your view appears a little jaded by the two cases most close to you. I can tell you from years of experience that when the standard of care is breached by a physician then the case will be deemed reasonable to pursue in the right circumstances.
I wish your friend a healthy recovery.
7 lawyers agree
Personal Injury Lawyer
Every case is evaluated on its own facts. The background of a potential plaintiff is important to any case, but not the only issue.
The first issue is whether there is a legal duty, and if you do not get past that hurdle, the identity of the plaintiff is irrelevant. It sounds like this is why your friend cannot find a lawyer. Why would an incidental finding on an MRI by itself support a claim? Was it misread causing unnecessary surgery? Why would the removal of it support a claim. Where is the legal duty?
This is a summary based on incomplete facts. You should not rely on it as legal advise. No attorney-client relationship is intended to be formed. You may call me 772-562-4570; email me firstname.lastname@example.org, or visit my website http://www.millerlawoffices.us
2 lawyers agree