Reasons Why A Medical Malpractice Case Could Prove Hard To Win

The former patient that has chosen to pursue a medical malpractice case faces certain hurdles and challenges. As medicine makes continuing advances, the height of the hurdles and the enormity of the challenges increase.

What are some examples of a hurdle in a medical malpractice case?

• The plaintiff’s burden of providing proof that the charged doctor was negligent
• The plaintiff’s burden of providing proof that what the charged doctor did was wrong
• The plaintiff’s requirement for finding a suitable lawyer, one that can voice the arguments in the presented claim

How could a lawyer help a client to move over and past those first 2 hurdles?

The client’s lawyer would need to show what actions the charged physician should have taken. In order to accomplish that goal, an Injury Lawyer in Hamilton would need to find some member of the medical community that would be willing to testify to the incorrectness of the physician’s chosen method for treating the client’s medical problem.

If a physician had used a relatively new procedure, there might be few doctors that could testify, as to the correctness of the physician’s choice. If a physician had used a complex procedure, the members of the jury might not understand the offered testimony, concerning that same procedure.

What are some examples of a challenge in a medical malpractice case?

Getting the jury to accept the degree to which the facts underscore the doctor’s negligence; that proves to be a challenge, because patients want to be able to trust their doctors. Hence, jurists hesitate to declare that any doctor would be capable of performing a negligent action. Locating witnesses that are capable of giving understandable testimony to the jury.

Why is that a challenge, and why is it so necessary for an attorney’s efforts to prove sufficient for the task of meeting that challenge?

Lawyers need to search among the community of certified physicians for someone that can testify on the methods used by the doctor/defendant. Not all physicians have the ability to share their knowledge by using language that can be understood by a member of the public.

In addition, a jury cannot seek help from the judge, regarding what a witness has said. A judge can explain aspects of the law, but not issues relating to medicine. Often, when a jury fails to understand an explanation, it discounts that same explanation. That means discounting the presented testimony.

If the testimony against a doctor proves difficult to understand, and the jury tends to trust doctors, the nature of the verdict seems rather evident. The jury is apt to rule in favor of the charged member of the medical community. The typical jury acknowledges only the most obvious mistake.