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.