Who Defines the Standard of Care in a Medical Malpractice Case

[Brian57]

What do you need explained?

As is commonly known, a hand specialist has vastly more knowledge, skill, techniques and experience with working on a hand. They will undoubtedly trump any general orthopedic surgeon, as I have learned the hard way. So, they have two entirely different approaches on fixing a broken metacarpal.

One is to cast it for five weeks and allow the scar tissue to attack the nearby joints. The other is to use a detachable cast and exercise the joint early on to not allow the scar tissue to accumulate. The ortho surgeon also misdiagnosed the alignment of the bone, which may require surgery later.

Without getting into medical specifics, these two doctors have very different methods of repairing a broken/smashed metacarpal. One that caused damage and the other which does not. One that would have done surgery day one and started exercising the joint to reduce the accumulation of scar tissue. The other who immobilized the joint and let scar tissue attack the hand.

These are polar opposites in approach. Which one is considered the "standard of care." Can you hold a doctor accountable for not following simple precautions?

[Mr. Knowitall]

If you are treated by an orthopedic surgeon who is a subspecialist in hand surgery, that doctor is held to the standard of practice for the subspecialty when performing hand surgery. If that's what you want, see a specialist hand surgeon for your care.

The question of whether or not your orthopedic surgeon violated the standard of care for an orthopedic surgeon is a separate question, and not one anybody here can answer in the abstract. If you want that analysis made, consult a malpractice lawyer and have the lawyer review the medical records from your treatment.

[Taxing Matters]

If so, that is why folks go to specialists. Because the more general doctor can screw you up and not be accountable for it. (with my now pessimistic outlook)

The details matter. If the particular medical condition/injury was something that the more general doctor would ordinarily not be competent to treat and would therefore refer the patient to someone more specialized, then the standard of care for that more general doctor may call for him/her to make that referral and not attempt to treat the patient himself/herself. If the doctor goes ahead and attempts to treat the patient anyway and screws it up, he or she may indeed be held liable in malpractice. If you want to know whether the particular doctor who treated you might be liable in malpractice, the easiest way to do that is consult the people who spend their days suing doctors — medical malpractice lawywers.

[Brian57]

The details matter. If the particular medical condition/injury was something that the more general doctor would ordinarily not be competent to treat and would therefore refer the patient to someone more specialized, then the standard of care for that more general doctor may call for him/her to make that referral and not attempt to treat the patient himself/herself. If the doctor goes ahead and attempts to treat the patient anyway and screws it up, he or she may indeed be held liable in malpractice. If you want to know whether the particular doctor who treated you might be liable in malpractice, the easiest way to do that is consult the people who spend their days suing doctors — medical malpractice lawywers.

The amount of incompetence I have witnessed since my accident is appalling. They are across all lines of who I would consider professionals in their field. I could name them all but the list would be too long.

I am not sure if I could trust another person who claims to be an authority in their field, but I might have to.

I used to think doctors were all professionals and those that filed claims against their insurance policies were grubbers. Now I think differently.

[Taxing Matters]

The amount of incompetence I have witnessed since my accident is appalling. They are across all lines of who I would consider professionals in their field. I could name them all but the list would be too long.

I am not sure if I could trust another person who claims to be an authority in their field, but I might have to.

I used to think doctors were all professionals and those that filed claims against their insurance policies were grubbers. Now I think differently.

Most persons practicing a given profession do so competently. But even a professional who is generally competent can make a mistake from time to time since they are humans and humans make mistakes. No one, not me, not you, or anyone else in this world is perfect at what they do. Moreover, unfortunately, there a few in every profession who are truly incompetent. But the fact that mistakes are made once in a while and that a few are not competent should not overshadow the fact that the vast majority of the time doctors and lawyers do their jobs just fine and the patient/client gets at least acceptable service.

When it comes to medical malpractice lawsuits, you want to have a medical malpractice lawyer handle it for you. Trying to do it pro se is asking for a disaster. Medical malpractice claims are not easy to bring; the rules are slightly tilted in the doctor's favor to begin with (thanks to very good lobbying by their professional associations) and the evidence and expert testimony needed have to be compelling. If you don’t follow the procedural rules carefully you can lose on that alone. However smart you may be, smarts alone isn't enough. You need to know the laws and rules that apply, and you need experience in litigating those kinds of cases in the courts of the state where the case will be tried.