What if an Injury Does not Qualify for Medical Negligence Claims?

There is a chance that an injury sustained by a patient does not qualify for any medical negligence claims. If it does not fit the requirements of liability and causation, which is basically another term for responsibility and grounds, then a solicitor may recommend not filing for a claim.

However, that does not mean that a victim has no recourse at all. The beauty of talking to a solicitor is that there may be another way. In fact, as a person familiar with the various laws in the United Kingdom, he may find other areas where the other party may be found guilty in.

One example is that a certain action may not qualify for a negligence claim under Tort Law but can fall under Criminal Law. This happens if the solicitor sees that the action taken by health care provider, which resulted in a death, was not due to a negligent action but pre-meditated one.

As a pre-meditated action, this means that the health care provider either planned or conspired to murder someone, making this a criminal offense. And as a criminal offense, the police may be called in to enforce the law. This means that the penalty of incarceration may be implemented and may range from a few years to a lifetime. The guilty party may also have to pay damages in addition to being jailed.

Being Dumb and Being Negligent are two Different Things in Medical Negligence Claims

As a victim interested in filing a case, one needs to establish that negligence has occurred. And since consulting a lawyer is one of the better ways to do this, using the internet to search for a competent one makes it easier. A simple keyword like medicalnegligenceclaims can kick off the search. And once a list of potential lawyers is displayed on a computer screen, all one has to do is contact them.

But like every lawyer will say, not all cases involving medical negligence are cut and dried. In a case that involves someone doing something dumb that leads to his being in the hospital and being diagnosed incorrectly, a bit of confusion may exist.

In this situation, it may seem that they are related enough to dismiss a medical negligence claim. But after closer scrutiny, a lawyer may conclude that while they are related physically, the act of one does not cancel the act of the other. So the conclusion is that there are two distinct incidents here.

The first is the dumb incident involving the patient and the car he hit with his face after hanging on to it on icy streets. The second is the incident where the doctor prescribed the wrong solution.

The misdiagnosis resulted in harm to the patient which required corrective surgery weeks later. It is this negligent act that made it qualified for filing medical negligence claims.

The reason for the patient being in the hospital; no matter how dumb, is immaterial because the case only focuses on the negligent act.

Personal Injury Solicitors: An Alternative to Lying

One option, if you are one of our countries’ personal injury solicitors, that you can make use of whenever you are tempted to invent the facts of your case in order to expedite your victory is to dissuade yourself from doing so and instead exaggerate the facts that work for you and to keep silent about those that do not.

For example, you can emphasize the importance of one case by consistently and constantly mentioning it to the courts. This strategy, according to the great Roman orator Cicero, has the advantage of swelling that fact’s importance in the hearer’s mind, and so will, by its size, block whatever other facts work against you. You must use such a suggestion with caution, however, for if done too much and too frequently, you can belie your original aim of persuading the courts by rousing their suspicion. You can exaggerate a certain fact in a subtle way too. You can drop hints or insinuations, for instance, instead of telling facts outright.

For those facts that work against you, you can choose to keep silent over them and quickly pass them over. Thus, Demosthenes, on his speech “On the Crown,” relegated the legal points against him in the middle of his speech, and quickly dismissed them, knowing that it is on those points that he is most vulnerable.

Personal Injury Claims: Coolness and Sobriety

Many people who file personal injury claims are not just surprised but are positively offended at the seeming inhumanity of the courts. They appear to be impassive, cold, and mechanical, so much so that they appear to be blind to the human element that each case is necessarily characterized with. However, such an assessment is wrong. In fact, judges show their warmth and humanity precisely by acting coolly and soberly.

How so? The reason is simply that only in such an attitude, an attitude of open-mindedness, fair-dealing, and unwillingness to espouse a certain side until the other side has been given a hearing, that judges make real the ultimate goal which entitles them a right to exist: materializing justice.

For what would happen if our judges not only ceased acting coolly and soberly but even became excitable and emotional? Will the defendant still get a fair chance of having his say seeing that the judge had already been inflamed by the plaintiff? Will the plaintiff, in his turn, be given a chance to win his claim, once the judge in his emotional turmoil, automatically dismisses his case because he dislikes the plaintiff’s tone of voice or appearance? Finally, will our courts still be looked up to as symbols of law and social harmony once their inhabitants degenerate from being lofty and intelligent magistrates into emotional and vindictive babies?