• Medical Attention. Medical care is vital not only for treating your injuries but also for creating documentation of those injuries. This ensures that insurance companies cannot argue that your injuries are not as severe as you claim in an attempt to avoid paying you what you deserve. When you see a doctor, the medical records created provide a record of treatment for your case. If you need help finding the right doctors to treat you after an accident, our New Jersey personal injury lawyers can search for qualified medical professionals who possess experience diagnosing and treating the specific kind of injuries that accidents can cause.
You should also get a hold of your medical records, both of any treatment following your accident and for the period preceding your injury. This will prove that you are telling the truth about your injury and that the accident, not any pre-existing condition, was responsible for the injury. You can contact your doctor to request a copy of your medical records. All of these records will help you to prove your claim if you decide to file for compensation. A personal injury lawyer can help you to attain the compensation you deserve for your injury.
In order for him to have achieved this properly he should have made sure he contacted the physician for further information even if the physician failed to communicate with him. Because of his actions the plaintiff is holding the pharmacist accountable for his treatment and that is not where all of the blame should be consumed. The argument that can be made for the pharmacist is that the pharmacist acted within his scope of practice and left everything to the physician. This situation can easily be construed as, if the physician needed further medications or if there were any adverse reaction then he would have contacted the pharmacist. Once again the prosecutor may argue that the pharmacist had a duty to follow up on any treatment that he provided to a patient.
Have you suffered a debilitating personal injury at any point in the past, at work or on the road? Do you believe that a clearly identifiable third party is to blame, and that your quality of life or earnings have been significantly negatively affected as result? If so, you could be entitled to file a personal injury claim, in order to seek a court settlement to claim compensation for a personal injury. Our experienced, meticulous solicitors will assess your personal injury claim(s) upon request, in order to help you to construct the best legal representation for your personal injury compensation claim. The vast majority of personal injury claims fit into three location related categories; road, work place or public place (including retail venues).
Wrongful death is a type of personal injury claim. So, just like other personal injury claims, the lawsuit is filed against the people who are believed to be responsible for the injuries that led to death. This might be another driver, a doctor, a manufacturer, or an employer who has perhaps failed, for example, to keep machines functioning properly. The responsible party or parties may
The customer, which may be an individual, business, or other entity, agrees to pay the premiums as required, in exchange for monetary protection from the insurer for any possible substantial loss. Customers usually obtain insurance, not to cover the trivial incidents of life or business, but to cover the potential significant losses which could be a financial hardship for them. The premiums of all customers of the insurance company are pooled together. The insurance applies statistical analysis to determine the chance that a particular event might occur to one of their customers. From this analysis they can determine the premiums which must be collected and the claims which must be paid to keep the insurance company financially profitable.
When giving patients diagnoses, physicians need to follow these doctrines by creating a balance between telling the truth and providing hope, which is why some may mistakenly turn to benevolent deception as the answer. In most medical situations, benevolent deception is not permissible because the patients’ given right to autonomy is disrespected by doctors. The only time when this practice is justifiable is if it used as a “last resort”, i.e., during circumstances of crises where there are no alternatives to lying. This type of situation needs to be a life-threatening emergency with limited time available for a doctor to fully explain the diagnosis in a beneficent manner. Also, the reasons for deception must be to prevent psychological distress, and its execution must have a high chance of success so that the patient-doctor relationship will not suffer from a break in trust.
M should tell his patients that he has HIV. Although the doctor may feel that it his business to keep, if he is putting his patients in danger he should make them aware of his condition. Of course, he would be covered during his surgeries but if an incident were to take place where he infects a patient there would be major scrutiny for the doctor. In the mind of the doctor it would be seen as an accident but you can never take back the health of a patient that has a virus that attacks their own body, which can rack up expenses due to the costs of the medicine needed to keep the virus at bay. I believe that the doctor should open up to his patients, by doing that he would lose some but he would also gain their respect and he would be letting his patients know that he keeps nothing from him and that their trust in him is key.
In this paper, I will explore the use of defensive medicine according to physician specialty and attempt to find their relationship to medical malpractice. Defining the term “defensive medicine” is crucial to the understanding of my project. In its most basic form, defensive medicine is “[the] practice of medicine centering, as its primary aim, around self-protection from liability in the event of a tragic outcome, rather than affording primacy to the patient's well-being…” (Hauser et al. 1991). Defensive medicine or defensive decision-making generally requires doctors to perform unnecessary tests and treatments for their patients.
Liability for negligence will not be found unless the following factors are present: (a) the defendant must owe a duty to the plaintiff to exercise care; (b) the defendant must breach the standard of care established by law for his/her conduct; (c) the plaintiff must suffer loss or injury as a result of this breach; (d) the conduct of the defendant must be the "proximate cause" of the plaintiff's loss or injury. ( Picard, Ellen I. p. 29) In the case of Adderly v. Bremner (Picard, Ellen I. p. 461) the defendant physician was negligent in not changing the syringes to vaccinate 38 patients and instead used one needle for every two patients. As a consequence, the plaintiff was infected with septicemia (blood poisoning). This doctor failed to give the required standard of care. Any reasonable doctor would have in fact changed the syringe after each patient and would have foreseen the consequences for not changing them.