Medical Malpractice Attorney in San Francisco, California
How do you typically approach negotiations and settlements in surgical malpractice cases?
How do you typically approach negotiations and settlements in surgical malpractice cases?
More In This Category
View Transcript
In surgical malpractice cases, there are several factors to consider. On one hand, there may be cases where a physician uses a technique that is not warranted or appropriate for the circumstances. Another critical aspect is evaluating whether there was a failure to follow up and assess the outcome of the surgery, as well as any potential postoperative complications.
Negotiating these cases is similar to other malpractice cases, where the strengths and weaknesses of both the plaintiff’s and the defense’s cases are carefully assessed. The defense in surgical malpractice cases often argues that rare, unpredictable events, like “lightning striking” during surgery, are to blame, but this is not the standard in law or medicine.
When settling these cases, it’s crucial to uncover the key issues, whether it’s a technique issue, consent problem, or a failure in postoperative follow-up. Each case involves multiple dimensions that must be thoroughly examined.
San Francisco, CA medical malpractice attorney Jeff Mitchell discusses how he typically approaches negotiations and settlements in surgical malpractice cases. In surgical malpractice cases, there are several key dimensions to evaluate. Firstly, some cases revolve around the technique used by the physician during the surgery. In these instances, it’s essential to determine whether the technique employed was warranted and appropriate given the circumstances.
Another critical aspect to consider in surgical malpractice cases is whether there was a failure to follow up after the surgery. This includes evaluating the patient’s postoperative outcome and identifying any potential problems that may have arisen.
In the negotiation of these cases, the attorney must assess the strengths and weaknesses of their client’s case, as well as the defense’s position. Defense arguments in surgical malpractice cases may attempt to downplay the physician’s responsibility by comparing the adverse outcome to a rare and unforeseeable event, such as a lightning strike. While such arguments are not reflective of the prevailing standards in law and medicine, they are occasionally presented.
Ultimately, resolving surgical malpractice cases involves delving into the specifics of the case, whether it’s related to surgical technique, informed consent, or post-operative care, to determine the strengths and weaknesses on both sides.
