Though trials make headlines, most medical malpractice cases end before they get before a jury. Many claims are quite dubious and are quickly dismissed; other times, the parties reach a settlement to avoid the risks of going to court.
People who place their spouse or parent in a nursing home often cannot come to visit for more than a few hours per week, if that. Worried about what goes on the rest of the time, many families have begun installing hidden cameras in their loved one’s room to videotape their interactions with nursing home staff.
If you are hurt or your medical condition deteriorates as a result of negligence or a mistake made by a medical professional, you will want to hold that person responsible. This is a natural and completely understandable goal. But sometimes the accused medical professional may have the law on their side, giving them the chance to adequately (and successfully) defend the case against them.
The typical personal injury case, for example a medical malpractice claim, requires the plaintiff to prove five elements, usually by the preponderance of the evidence. One of those elements is known as “proximate cause.” Proximate cause measures the scope of the defendant’s responsibility for an event that caused injury to the plaintiff.
The Cleveland Clinic appears to have prevailed in an unusual type of medical malpractice lawsuit filed by a man who underwent surgery for prostate cancer at the Clinic in 2008. A federal appeals court found that the man had no standing to sue the Clinic under the False Claims Act, a statute meant to prosecute businesses that defraud government programs.
Sometimes, a claim an employee files with the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation does not smell right. But finding a smoking gun proving that the employee is committing fraud can be hard to find for employers.