Can a first year med student legally treat patients without direct Dr. oversight?

[ERDoc]

Sue them! for all medical bills and gross negligence. their negligence put you at risk of "really dangerous" problems as the other doctor put it. so yeah im sure he didnt document that he called you a hypocondriact. id sue him the doctor over him the hospital and the medschool.

And this is why the US medical system is in such disarray. What are you going to sue them for? If you are going to say medical malpractice, please tell me the four elements for a medical malpractice case and demonstrate them in Dwayne's situation.

[Just Plain Ruff]

Sue them! for all medical bills and gross negligence. their negligence put you at risk of "really dangerous" problems as the other doctor put it. so yeah im sure he didnt document that he called you a hypocondriact. id sue him the doctor over him the hospital and the medschool.

Good God Mario, get a freaking Grip. Take a step back, take a deep breath and stop drinking the Kool Aid of the medical malpractice commercials.

Now answer ER Doc's questions.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Captain ToHellWithItAll

[Mario1105]

Failure to Treat

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  When a healthcare provider fails to treat a patient, there
  may be liability for medical malpractice. Failure to treat can occur in a
  variety of circumstances, including failures to perform medical tests,
  treat a known medical condition or advise the patient to see a
  specialist when necessary.

  
  
  
  

Medical Malpractice

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  When a healthcare provider fails to act as a provider in the
  same specialty would, a person who sustains injuries may be able to sue
  the provider for medical malpractice. Compensation may include damages
  for medical costs, lost wages, pain and suffering and attorney fees.

  
  
  
  

Sponsored Links

Read more: Medical Malpractice for Failure to Treat | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_6814151_medical-malpractice-failure-treat.html#ixzz2K3JAfol4

just saying. why should he have to pay for something that another doctor failed to treat? should the doctor not be held accountable? what if dwayne had died? why should he not be held accountable?

Edited February 5, 2013 by Mario1105

[ERDoc]

OK, you partially answered the question. So, what injuries did Dwayne sustain?

I think you are confusing two concepts here. I agree that he should not have to pay the bill but there is a difference between not paying the bill and suing for malpractice. Do you really think we should be able to sue anyone for what-ifs? Yes, he should also be held accountable, but there is a difference between holding someone accountable and suing them for malpractice.

Again, the four requirements of a malpractice suit are very cut and dry. What are they and where did they happen in Dwayne's case?

[Just Plain Ruff]

You didn't answer ERDocs question though. He specifically asked you the 4 elements of medical malpractice and apply them to Dwaynes situation.

And what if Dwayne had died, but he didn't. It's awful nice that you have Dwaynes best interests at heart but what are the 4 elements to a successful case?

edit: was typing as Doc was submitting.

My daughter was misdiagnosed with not having RSV but was treated appropriately with antibiotics and breathing treatments, should I sue her doctor for misdiagnosing her? Is that malpractice?

Edited February 5, 2013 by Captain ToHellWithItAll

[ERDoc]

My daughter was misdiagnosed with not having RSV but was treated appropriately with antibiotics and breathing treatments, should I sue her doctor for misdiagnosing her?

Yes, because RSV is a virus and should never be treated with antibiotics so not only was she misdiagnosed but she was treated inappropriately (I joke about the malpractice part but the rest is true).

[Mario1105]

i still see it under failure to treat. they never even ran blood work.

Medical malpractice has the following four essential elements. All four
of these elements must be proven for malpractice to be established.

[1]
Duty of care resulting from a relationship between the patient and the
caregiver. Associated with this is a minimal "standard of care" (duty of
care).

The question here is "Did the caregiver agree to treat
the patient?" If the answer is YES, then an appropriate degree of skill
and competence is required (the minimal standard of care). In addition,
there may be instances where the caregiver has a duty to persons other
than the patient. For example, should a patient suffer an epileptic
seizure that leads to an accident to others (as in a car accident), the
caregiver may be liable for their injuries as a result of failing to
diagnose the patient's epilepsy or for not warning the patient against
driving when the diagnosis of epilepsy was established.

[2] Breach of that standard of care by caregiver (breech of duty)

This
is usually established by expert court testimony that defines what the
acceptable standard of care is and that explains how the caregiver did
not provide that care. Of course, expert witnesses for the other side
will argue the exact opposite.

[3] Injury to the patient

This
is often easy to establish, as in when the patient has had the wrong
kidney removed, but it can be more difficult to establish, for instance,
when the injury is psychological.

[4] Proof of the injury was caused by the breach of care (proximate cause)

Proximate
cause can be determined by asking if the patient would have been harmed
in the absence of the caregiver's actions. For example, would a patient
undergoing an appendectomy have been harmed if the surgeon had not left
a sponge in the patient's addomen? If the answer is NO, then the
surgeon's actions are deemed to have caused harm to the patient, and
thus fit the causation requirements.

A person accused of
malpractice can mount a defence by showing that one of the above four
elements is missing. For instance, he or she may argue that the injury
to the patient was preexisting and not caused by the caregiver.

Common
theories (types of claims) of malpractice include: 1) lack of
appropriate care; 2) lack of informed consent; 3) negligent supervision;
4) patient abandonment etc.

how about we file it under lack of appropriate care and call it a day?

[Just Plain Ruff]

Yes, because RSV is a virus and should never be treated with antibiotics so not only was she misdiagnosed but she was treated inappropriately (I joke about the malpractice part but the rest is true).

She also had bronchitis with it so the antibiotics were to cover both. This was her GP who prescribed the antibiotics for both. Didn't mean to leave that part out. She got better after about a week. It's not the first time we've had issues with this doctor or group and we are in the process of seeking new physicians.

i still see it under failure to treat. they never even ran blood work.

Medical malpractice has the following four essential elements. All four

of these elements must be proven for malpractice to be established.

[1]

Duty of care resulting from a relationship between the patient and the

caregiver. Associated with this is a minimal "standard of care" (duty of

care).

The question here is "Did the caregiver agree to treat

the patient?" If the answer is YES, then an appropriate degree of skill

and competence is required (the minimal standard of care). In addition,

there may be instances where the caregiver has a duty to persons other

than the patient. For example, should a patient suffer an epileptic

seizure that leads to an accident to others (as in a car accident), the

caregiver may be liable for their injuries as a result of failing to

diagnose the patient's epilepsy or for not warning the patient against

driving when the diagnosis of epilepsy was established.

[2] Breach of that standard of care by caregiver (breech of duty)

This

is usually established by expert court testimony that defines what the

acceptable standard of care is and that explains how the caregiver did

not provide that care. Of course, expert witnesses for the other side

will argue the exact opposite.

[3] Injury to the patient

This

is often easy to establish, as in when the patient has had the wrong

kidney removed, but it can be more difficult to establish, for instance,

when the injury is psychological.

[4] Proof of the injury was caused by the breach of care (proximate cause)

Proximate

cause can be determined by asking if the patient would have been harmed

in the absence of the caregiver's actions. For example, would a patient

undergoing an appendectomy have been harmed if the surgeon had not left

a sponge in the patient's addomen? If the answer is NO, then the

surgeon's actions are deemed to have caused harm to the patient, and

thus fit the causation requirements.

A person accused of

malpractice can mount a defence by showing that one of the above four

elements is missing. For instance, he or she may argue that the injury

to the patient was preexisting and not caused by the caregiver.

Common

theories (types of claims) of malpractice include: 1) lack of

appropriate care; 2) lack of informed consent; 3) negligent supervision;

4) patient abandonment etc.

how about we file it under lack of appropriate care and call it a day?

Fair enough Mikey, this was a good review session that you gave us. Nice find.

Yes lack of appropriate care is completely right. I would not go as far as saying it was malpractice but I certainly would be fighting the bill. Dwayne never did give us the outcome as to whether he paid the bill or not. My suspicion is with Dwayne Integrity, he is working some sort of agreement out with the clinic because he did indeed get treated although not very well, but he did get some treatment at least and that at least requires a modicum of payment. It is the right thing to do.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Captain ToHellWithItAll

[ERDoc]

You are not going to get out of it that easy. You have the correct elements now. I think we all agree that there was a duty was owed and that duty was breached. Did that breach result in an injury? Did that injury result in damage? I think it would be hard to make an argument for either of those. Dwayne was not injured and did not suffer any damage as a result. Therefore, there is not a valid malpractice suit. You cannot sue someone for what could have happened. Should anyone who carries a loaded weapon into a building where it is legal (let's put aside the current gun debate of where it should/shouldn't be legal and just assume that it is legal) be arrested because what if their weapon had gone off and hit someone?

Now if Dwayne's pain was from an MI and he died, it is a whole different story. An injury has occurred and damage has been done. This doctor is lucky that nothing did happen and sometimes luck is the only thing between being stupid and being malpractice.

[ChaseZ]

Sue them! for all medical bills and gross negligence. their negligence put you at risk of "really dangerous" problems as the other doctor put it. so yeah im sure he didnt document that he called you a hypocondriact. id sue him the doctor over him the hospital and the medschool.

I hope all of your patients treat you with the same courtesy and attempt to sue you into poverty every chance they get. I am in no way discrediting what happened to Dwayne but there is a difference between reporting questionable practices / billing and attempting to sue a provider for financial gain.

This is why so many providers are crippled by fear of litigation