Tort Law Case Study
Connie Spears, whom had with a history of blood clots, arrived at Christus Santa Rosa Hospital’s emergency room of Texas in 2010 with unbearable leg discomfort. She was diagnosed with something minor and went home only to find herself in agonizing pain few days later. Emergency personnel escorted her to another hospital and found a massive blood clot and tissue damage. The doctors surgically removed both legs in order to save her life.
As three years had passed, Ms. Spears contends that she is a victim of a medical malpractice and of Texas’ newly reformed tort laws. Texas lawmakers unanimously passed a tort reform package in 2003 which topped noneconomic damages that a plaintiff could receive in medical malpractice at $250,000. That became the negligence standard for emergency care. It also required an expert witness to substantiate evidence of negligence before a trial. Tort reform advocates approve the law as a way to reduce frivolous lawsuits against health care providers and organizations. Plaintiffs would be required to find a physician in the equivalent practice to serve as the expert witness. Laws also held plaintiffs accountable for defendants’ legal fees if they are unable to …show more content…
I felt this case was of negligence and malpractice, how can someone complain about their discomfort, provide relevant medical history and not get the proper diagnosis. They could have provided a more I depth diagnosis or allowed for a longer observation period. Hospitals often struggle to find a balance between profit and patient care. If the profit margin was not the first priority, then maybe we can avoid similar cases like this. It seems that the struggle for tort reform in finding a good balance between protecting healthcare institutions and at the same time allow for patients the opportunity to pursue compensation when malpractice does occur is
As three years had passed, Ms. Spears contends that she is a victim of a medical malpractice and of Texas’ newly reformed tort laws. Texas lawmakers unanimously passed a tort reform package in 2003 which topped noneconomic damages that a plaintiff could receive in medical malpractice at $250,000. That became the negligence standard for emergency care. It also required an expert witness to substantiate evidence of negligence before a trial. Tort reform advocates approve the law as a way to reduce frivolous lawsuits against health care providers and organizations. Plaintiffs would be required to find a physician in the equivalent practice to serve as the expert witness. Laws also held plaintiffs accountable for defendants’ legal fees if they are unable to …show more content…
I felt this case was of negligence and malpractice, how can someone complain about their discomfort, provide relevant medical history and not get the proper diagnosis. They could have provided a more I depth diagnosis or allowed for a longer observation period. Hospitals often struggle to find a balance between profit and patient care. If the profit margin was not the first priority, then maybe we can avoid similar cases like this. It seems that the struggle for tort reform in finding a good balance between protecting healthcare institutions and at the same time allow for patients the opportunity to pursue compensation when malpractice does occur is