Resolving Medical Malpractice Claims in British Columbia
Many personal injury lawyers avoid medical negligence claims (medical malpractice claims) because of the difficulty in meeting the legal and evidentiary standards of proof against doctors and/or hospitals suspected of negligence in patient care. At Murphy Battista LLP, medical negligence claims represent a significant part of our practice.
Our law firm’s success on behalf of individuals and families affected by negligence in diagnosis or treatment is based on our years of experience gathering, analyzing and presenting complex medical evidence to insurers and before the courts. The legal team at Murphy Battista works effectively with a wide range of medical experts who are in a position to identify systemic failures in patient care and objectively evaluate the performance of their professional peers.
We handle a wide variety of negligence claims against doctors, hospitals and other health care providers. We also know what it takes to overcome the resistance of the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA), the insurer that covers British Columbian doctors in medical negligence actions. Contact Murphy Battista for a free consultation.
Examples of our medical negligence experience include:
- Misdiagnosis, delayed diagnosis and similar errors in emergency treatment, family practice and radiology
- Medication errors in either the prescription or the administration of drugs
- Surgical errors
- Anaesthesia errors
- Negligent care by nurses in post-operative recovery
- Medical errors based on poor communication between doctors and nurses or between doctors from different specialties
- Medical records errors
- Birth injuries caused by negligence during delivery or prenatal care
Proving Medical Negligence
Success in a medical negligence claim depends on more than proof of an error in judgment or practice on the part of a health care professional. It is also necessary to prove that the error causing the injury was of a kind that a reasonably careful professional would not have made under similar circumstances, and that the negligence actually resulted in the patient’s injury or death.
This burden of proof means that expert review of the circumstances and expert testimony will ordinarily be required to determine the viability of the medical negligence claim and to overcome the objections that the CMPA will be certain to raise in defending the actions of the doctor involved. At Murphy Battista, our experience properly investigating and proving medical negligence claims means that your case will be handled efficiently and knowledgeably.
For additional information about your potential claim for medical negligence claims in B.C., contact Murphy Battista for a free consultation.
Expert Medical Evidence Sometimes Needed to Assess the Full Extent of an Injury and the Compensation Required.
April 21, 2016
This month my INJURYwise column is devoted to expert medical evidence. Travel for the injured is rarely a fun experience. Airports, planes, taxi cabs, and trains are not geared towards persons with a disability. So as I sit in the Vancouver airport waiting for my flight home, I think about…Continue Reading
Five things you should know about medical malpractice claims.
July 27, 2018
After experiencing an incident with a doctor, health practitioner or hospital many people know something is amiss but they are not sure what questions they should be asking their lawyer beyond whether they have a medical malpractice claim. To help put these situations in context here are five questions and…Continue Reading
Disclaimer: The outcome of every legal proceeding will vary according to the facts and unique circumstances in each individual case. References to successful case results where the lawyers at Murphy Battista LLP have acted for clients are not necessarily a guarantee or indicative of future results.
Our client had suffered a stroke during open heart surgery caused by an air embolism entering her blood stream. The defendants disputed their liability for the injuries alleged as well as the severity of the consequences of the stroke. On this application, the defendants sought an order compelling our client to produce all content from her Facebook and Twitter profiles, as well as documents from her hard drive, iPhone, and digital camera. The court accepted our argument that it must balance disclosure with privacy rights and, in this case, there was no reason to invade the plaintiff’s privacy. The judge held: “I am unable to envisage any rational justification for breaching the privacy rights of an individual in civil proceedings simply because it is alleged that the individual’s general health, enjoyment of life and employability are directly at issue. Merely because a record may be made of the communication shouldn’t make it any different than a private telephone conversation. If not, surely applications in civil proceedings for recordings of private communications can’t be far behind.” This does not mean social media will not commonly have to be produced – one should always assume that everything they put on the internet can become public.