Breach of Duty in Medical System
Medical Law Journal
Name
Institution
Date
Introduction
Medical malpractice occurs as a result of injuries caused by negligence by healthcare providers. Medical malpractice results from an act of negligence by the healthcare provider. In legal terms, negligence is merely falling short of standard or failure to exercise reasonable care or what a prudent individual would use in a given situation. Negligence in the law of tort is based on the standard of a reasonable person (Frakes, & Jena, 2016). Therefore, medical malpractice is any act or omission by a healthcare provider that deviates from accepted standards while treating a patient occasioning an injury. Today, lawsuits related to medical malpractices are common in the country. It is, therefore, essential for the general public and healthcare providers to understand the elements that necessitate the cause of legal action against healthcare providers for negligence. The article highlights medical malpractice system flaws to the medical, legal, and regulatory community regarding based on the experience of Betsy Spring Uncle with the medical system.
Medical Malpractice Law
The U.S. medical malpractice law originated from English common law, which dates back to the ancient Roman laws. Medical malpractice was considered wrong and punishable under the Roman law and expanded into continental Europe. As a common law system, the U.S. medical malpractice law is derived from the English common law and was shaped by precedent in various courts around the country. English laws are the basis of jurisprudence in the U.S. and most commonwealth countries. In contrast to civil law, which is developed by legislating statutes or executive orders, common law is derived from previous court decisions known as precedent. Kass and Rose, 2016) noted that rules and frameworks governing medical negligence were established through state court decisions of similar previous lawsuits. Even though common law exists and can be enforceable in a court of law, they appear too broad to address specific medical malpractices.
The court has to determine monetary damages for compensation after establishing that negligence resulted in an injury. Damage calculation considers both economic, including the future cost of medical care, lost income, and actual financial loss attributable to the injury and non-economic losses like pain and suffering from an injury. Furthermore, generally practicing medical practitioners in the U.S. have medical malpractice insurance, which protects them in the event of medical negligence (Stimson, 2016). Betsy’s Uncle was old at 78 years and with no economic loss occasioned by his death. Monetary damages, if any, can only be compensated based on non-economic loss such pain and suffering Betsy and his parents incurred as a result of his death.
Medical malpractice is a subset of tort law providing remedies for negligence by the medical practitioners. In contrast to many countries, the U.S. medical malpractice law is under the individual states’ authority and not the Federal government (Stimson, 2016). Therefore, even though the principles are similar, state laws governing medical negligence in the U.S. vary from one jurisdiction to another. Several statues by different state legislatures have also influenced the policy governing medical malpractice. Therefore, the U.S. medical negligence law is based on the common law system but shaped by legislative action of different states.
There is one exception to medical malpractice liability arising from the context of volunteer assistance offered to the injured or an ailing patient. The defense is under the law of “Good Samaritan,” which protects bystanders from prosecution for wrongful death or unintended injury while helping the patient (Ashraf, Faiz, & Ariffin, 2017). However, Good Samaritan law also varies across different jurisdictions in the U.S. and specifies those protected from liability and the applicable circumstances. In Moldavia, under Samaritan law, a person is exempted from liability for assistance a person at the scene of emergency under Samaritan law provided that aid was provided in good faith and was completely gratuitously. Further to that, the conduct must not be wanton or grossly negligent, such as deliberate infliction of additional harm, and the aid was not given under legal obligations.
Medical Malpractice Claim Requirements
Any allegations of medical negligence in the U.S. must meet for elements before making a successful claim. The first element is the existence of legal duty between the physician and the patients. The physician has a legal obligation to provide treatment and care to the patient. Secondly, there must be a breach of duty by the physician by failing to adhere to the accepted standard of practice in the healthcare profession. Thirdly, there is a causal connection between the breach and the claimed injury, such that breaching the duty was the proximate reason for the incurred injury. Finally, there exist damages flowing from the injury or death occasioned by the negligent conduct of the healthcare care provider for redress by the legal system (Stimson, 2016). These elements are the basis for the cause of action for medical malpractices.
Wrongful death occasion by medical negligence in Moldavia has a remedy under the tort of wrongful death. Under this tort, heirs of a decedent can claim for damages caused by death, resulting as a result of medical negligence. However, before claiming for damages under tort of wrongful death, the heirs must meet specific requirements. The victim’s death must have been the cause in whole or part by the negligent conduct of the physician, and the plaintiff must prove that physician was indeed negligent and liable for the death of the victim. Further to that, there must be surviving beneficiaries and dependents such as children and spouses, and the victim’s death will cause monetary loss or damages to the beneficiaries and dependents. The court determines the compensation to the heirs under the tort of wrongful death occasioned by medical negligence.
Flaws in the Medical Malpractice System
There are certain flaws in the medical malpractice law, as evidenced in the case of Mr. Springs. For instance, before winning compensation for injuries caused by medical negligence, a patient must trace the injury to medical malpractice. Besides, medical malpractice allegations must also be filed in time within the “statute of limitation.” While the death of Betsy uncle can be partly attributed to negligence on the parts of healthcare providers, this is difficult to prove for some reason. First, Betsy was denied access to Uncle while at MGH, citing patient privacy law. Therefore, the niece can’t know whether his Uncle was taken to E.R. to prove there was indeed medical negligence. Hence, Betsy is unaware of the procedures conducted on his Uncle at the MGH. Therefore, proving this becomes impossible to prove. There was negligence evident on the part of ‘One-day’ hospital, including the absence of necessary drugs to administer to the patient for possible allergic reaction. Ideally, this must have been anticipated by the healthcare practitioner. However, due to time limitation, the period of filing the case, Betsy and his parents are unable to claim for these damages. On the contrary, the hospitals are billing them for the services delivered to Mr. Spring. Besides, the absence of surviving beneficiaries and dependents means that no claims can be sustained under the tort of wrongful death.
The other flaw is noted in the Emergency Rescue responders (ERR). The Moldavia and Federal laws require all providers of ERR services to provide relevant services, and this also includes reaching out to the appropriate ERR provider for that emergency (Stimson, 2016). Provision is effective at all times, notwithstanding the ERR employment status. The case of Mr. Spring is classified among emergence services. However, the ambulance dispatcher declined to offer the ERR services because Mr. due to miscoding by the UnitedBIGRED Medicare insurance, the dispatcher did not provide required ERR services. By refusing to provide ERR services in the emergency, dispatcher violated Moldavian ERR provisions. Furthermore, the law on medical malpractices is not clear regarding the miscoding of patient information.
Conclusion
The article has highlighted medical malpractice system flaws to the medical, legal, and regulatory community regarding based on the experience of Betsy Spring Uncle with the medical system. Medical malpractice is any act or omission by a healthcare provider that deviates from accepted standards while treating a patient occasioning an injury. However, to prove medical negligence, defendants must prove a breach of duty and a causal connection between the breach and the claimed injury. As shown in the case, proving these elements in the court of law is hindered by patient confidentiality law. The other flaws relate to ERR services provision, with the rampant case where ambulance dispatcher refusing to offer services citing lack of coverage. The time limit for filing medical negligence claim is a flaw limiting access to justice as a result of medical malpractices. In response to these concerns, Moldavia should institute legislative and administrative actions to reform torts on medical malpractice litigation.
References