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
those cases are
on the one hand you’ll have cases that
are a solely a technique case where the
physician uses a technique that was not
warranted under the circumstances are
not appropriate another aspect of a
surgical malpractice case you need to
evaluate is whether or not there’s a
failure to follow up and and determine
what uh the outcome is of the surgery
and if there’s any potential problems
that manifest uh postoperatively and
then you know you you treat the
negotiation of those cases like any
other Mal practice case you’re assessing
the strengths um and liabilities of your
case and also the defense’s case so the
the defense and surgical MAP practice
case always wants to argue well you know
lightning can hit you on the operating
room table we’re really sorry that’s
obviously not the state of the law or
medicine but that’s something that you
you hear and I’ve heard for 25 years but
in terms of settling those cases uh you
have to kind of figure out where where
the bones are buried whether it’s a
technique case a consent case or a
post-operative follow-up case I mean
there’s all sorts of Dimensions to that
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.
