Medical Malpractice Immunity

In recent years, more cases of medical malpractice have been decided in the U.S. than in all the other cases of medical malpractice combined. As a result of this trend, American medical professionals are required to understand and be aware of their professional liability and civil liability status as well. For instance, to answer a question as to whether or not they can be sued after being exposed to a medical error, the answer is a resounding “yes!” This article briefly discusses the basics of medical malpractice immunity, including what constitutes a medical malpractice case, what medical malpractice cases are typically about, and how they can best be handled by a qualified lawyer.

YouTube video explains medical malpractice in hospitals

The idea of sovereign immunity makes sure certain exclusions to important medical malpractice liabilities to be known. Examples presented include the circumstances applied to active military personnel overseas who are protected under the Medical Malpractice Immunity Act. Also included are cases concerning professional indemnity insurance coverage for doctors who treat patients with birth defects, mentally retarded individuals, and children with developmental disabilities. Aside from the act’s exclusions, sovereign immunity also provides an effective and practical means of limiting and protecting the rights of those who suffer injury as a result of medical malpractice, while also serving to maintain a contemporary application with modern practices with regard to the nature and course of justice itself.

It must be noted that sovereign immunity prevents doctors from being sued under common law negligence law for acts of negligence that happen at the operational level. Practically, this means that if a doctor has a duty of care towards a patient-in this case, a newborn baby-but neglects to exercise the standard of care due to a preexisting condition, the patient may bring a lawsuit against the doctor under the statute. sovereign immunity shields doctors from having to go to trial, even if they are guilty of professional negligence-but only if they can show that no reasonable person would have been affected by their breach of duty.

Contemporary Application and the Sovereign Immunity Law

As is commonly understood by people unfamiliar with medical malpractice cases, the mere fact that a patient is sueable under the medical malpractice act does not mean that the physician is liable in any way. Common law negligence law, which is the basis for lawsuits brought against physicians on behalf of patients, requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a breach of duty or misconduct occurred. Doctors who commit what physicians know as “unprofessional conduct” may face professional liability suits under the act, but it remains at the discretion of the courts as to how much evidence they require in order to find such breaches. Even when found, physicians have a great deal of latitude as to how and where they present their evidence. Doctors are ultimately responsible for proving their own innocence-not the other way around.

The exception to this rule is when the act of negligence is performed by someone in an operating room or other area of the hospital that is typically staffed by members of the medical staff. In these circumstances, the sovereign immunity law provides that a suit can be brought on behalf of any injured party that was not a patient of the doctor. While operating room personnel are typically considered to be immune from being sued for their actions, their presence can create a situation in which a professional liability suit could be brought against the facility if it were proven that they did perform their duties in an unprofessional manner. Under such a circumstance, the immunity act allows such suits to go forward even if the plaintiff has actually been a patient of the doctor. The same principle applies to all injuries that occur in the course and scope of being a patient in a health care setting.

There are many gray areas that surround the contemporary application of sovereign immunity law. The most significant factor in interpreting the modern statute is the strict construction of the medical malpractice act itself. While state governments may have wide discretion as to the boundaries of the contemporary application of sovereign immunity, it is important to remember that the plain language of the medical malpractice statute itself indicates that state governments may never favor a particular interpretation of the act. Therefore, before a lawsuit is brought by an individual who believes he has been injured as a result of medical malpractice, it is important to consult with an attorney who is very familiar with the modern application of the law.