Medical Malpractice Category Archives — Page 4 of 6 — Cape Cod Injury Lawyer Blog Published by Cape Cod, Massachusetts Injury Attorney

Massachusetts Court of Appeals Affirms Defense Verdict in Medical Malpractice Case Arising from Infant’s Death Three Days After Birth

February 22, 2017 | by John C. Manoog III

When a litigant who is unsatisfied with a trial court’s ruling files an appeal, the burden is on that appellant to convince the higher court that a mistake was made in the court below.

This can be a difficult task, especially when one of the grounds for the appeal is the alleged bias or favor of the trial court judge.

Facts of the Case

In a recent malpractice case decided by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the plaintiffs were the parents of an infant who died just days after her birth. The plaintiffs’ medical malpractice and wrongful death claims resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the defendant medical providers. The plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s denial of their motion for a new trial, alleging that the trial judge had made various mistakes in her evidentiary rulings and instructions to the jury. The plaintiffs also averred that the trial court judge had engaged in “persistent favoritism and biased conduct” toward the defendants.

Massachusetts Appeals Court Dismisses Cancer Patient’s Medical Malpractice Case on Statute of Repose Grounds

February 15, 2017 | by John C. Manoog III

In order to seek compensation from a person or business for injuries caused by negligence, the aggrieved party must file suit within the applicable statute of limitations. In Massachusetts, the limitations period for medical malpractice is three years.

In cases in which a statute of repose is also in effect, the plaintiff must also file his or her case within this period. Under the Massachusetts statute of repose, the plaintiff must file suit not only within three years after the cause of action accrued (the moment at which the plaintiff knew or should have known about the alleged act of negligence) but also within seven years of the alleged act or omission (except in cases involving foreign objects left inside the patient’s body).

Unless both of these time limits are met, the plaintiff cannot prevail.

Massachusetts Appeals Court Finds that Patient’s Offer of Proof Was Sufficient to Proceed to Trial in Medical Malpractice Case – Paretchan v. Kwasnik

January 11, 2017 | by John C. Manoog III

Under Massachusetts law, a person who alleges that his or her physician committed an act of medical negligence must submit an offer of proof to a medical malpractice tribunal in order for his or her lawsuit to move forward. If the tribunal decides that there is not sufficient evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim, the plaintiff has the option of posting a cash bond in order to proceed to trial. The bond, of course, is designed to deter patients from proceeding.

Alternatively, the plaintiff can allow the trial court to dismiss the case and then file an appeal, as happened in a recently decided case. An appeals court has the authority to decide whether or not the tribunal was correct in its decision regarding the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Revisits Timeliness of Complaint in Medical Malpractice Case – Parr v. Rosenthal

September 7, 2016 | by John C. Manoog III

About a year ago, we shared with you a Massachusetts Court of Appeals decision in a malpractice case in which the issue was whether or not suit had been filed within the three-year statute of limitations set forth under Massachusetts law.

The intermediate appellate court decided that the case was timely filed under the continuing treatment doctrine. Since that time, however, the state’s highest court has reviewed the case and decided otherwise.

Massachusetts Appeals Court Finds “Less Draconian Consequences” Than Dismissal of Medical Malpractice Action Not in Compliance with Notice Statute – Arsenault v. Bhattacharya

August 11, 2016 | by John C. Manoog III

Most people understand that there are statutes of limitations that govern the time that an injured person has to bring a claim in a court of law. There are numerous other issues of timeliness, however, of which the general public may be less aware.

One of those issues – the notice period for a medical malpractice lawsuit – was at issue in a recent appellate court decision.

Facts of the Case

In a case recently decided by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, Arsenault v. Bhattacharya, the plaintiff was a woman who sued her primary care physician, seeking redress for alleged medical malpractice in the treatment of the her wrists. The woman’s complaint was filed on October 21, 2013. The defendant first began treating her for carpal tunnel and cervical spondylosis with radiculopathy in January 2008.

Massachusetts Appeals Court Affirms Defense Verdict in Medical Malpractice Case Arising from Stillbirth After Allegedly Negligent Delay in Performing C-Section – Milambo v. Satlin

July 12, 2016 | by John C. Manoog III

Just as a negligent driver can be held liable in a court of law for damages resulting from the breach of a legal duty while driving a motor vehicle, so can a medical professional be held liable for a failure to uphold the applicable standard of care due a patient during the diagnosis or treatment of an illness, injury, or medical condition, including pregnancy and childbirth.

Unfortunately, such cases can be very difficult and time-consuming, and the plaintiff does not always win, even when a doctor’s actions have allegedly resulted in a very serious injury or even death.

Massachusetts Appeals Court Affirms Medical Malpractice Verdict in Favor of Administratrix in Failure to Diagnose Case – Ellis v. Clarke

June 7, 2016 | by John C. Manoog III

All personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits arising from negligence require proof of four essential elements. The defendant must have owed the plaintiff a duty, the defendant must have breached the duty, the plaintiff must have suffered damages, and the damages must have been the proximate result of the breached duty.

In some cases, particularly those arising from medical negligence, the plaintiff must provide expert testimony as to the issues of duty and breach of duty. It is up to the trial court judge to determine whether a particular expert relied upon by the plaintiff is qualified to testify on the issues at hand.

Large Massachusetts Jury Verdict in Birth Injury Medical Malpractice Case Attracts Attention

February 10, 2016 | by John C. Manoog III

A recent jury verdict returned in a medical negligence case tried in the Hampden Superior Court is making headlines across the state. According to media reports, the family of a girl, now 11, who was allegedly injured due to negligent medical treatment during her birth, sued six doctors who were involved in the mother’s obstetrical care at Baystate Medical Center. The center itself was not named in the lawsuit.

The media has reported that court documents indicate that the alleged acts of malpractice took place on September 5 and 6, back in 2004. At the time, the mother was 28 weeks pregnant and reportedly experiencing decreased fetal movement. She was admitted to the medical center and monitored overnight.

Massachusetts Woman’s Battery Claim Against Physician Fails; Federal Court Says Lack of Informed Consent Dictates Negligence Claim, Not Battery – Bradley v. Sugarbaker

December 23, 2015 | by John C. Manoog III

Under Massachusetts law, a competent adult has a legal right to forgo medical treatment if he or she so chooses. Of course, being able to exercise this right necessitates that a patient have knowledge of the options of treatment available to him or her, as well as the potential risks of each.

A physician’s failure to obtain informed consent can lead to liability for medical malpractice. To prevail on such a theory, a patient must be able to show that the doctor had a duty to disclose certain information, that the doctor did not do so, that there was a causal connection between the failure to disclose and the patient’s injury, and that actual damages resulted.

Possibility of Sexual Assault by Hospital Interpreter Was Foreseeable – Doe v. Boston Medical Center Corporation

September 15, 2015 | by John C. Manoog III

Many things can go wrong in a hospital setting. A doctor or nurse can fail to follow the established standard of care, and a patient can suffer the consequences of medical malpractice. A janitor can fail to put up a “wet floor” sign, causing a visitor to slip and fall. A security guard can fail to notice a dangerous trespasser in a parking garage, and a patient’s family member may be attacked.

Ultimately, the question of whether the medical facility is liable to the injured person in such situations depends upon the basic components of negligence law. Was a duty owed? Was the duty breached? Was the plaintiff harmed? Was there causation between the breach of duty and the plaintiff’s damages?