Medical Justice® aggressively addresses the interest of doctors within the changing landscape of medical practice. Our mission; to protect our members' most important assets - reputation, character and integrity - against frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits, Internet defamation and unwarranted demands for refunds.

Apr 17 2015

Pioneers take arrows. Staying safe when you are leading innovation.

Published by under Healthcare Reform

As medical innovation evolves, someone is the first person to do a procedure. If the results are great – wonderful. What happens if the results are great most of the time, but one patient out of 100 has a horrible complication? If that patient sues for malpractice, he will argue you were not following the standard of care, and that failure caused damages. That is the hallmark of a medical negligence suit.

Continue Reading »

No responses yet

Apr 09 2015

Are doctors responsible or liable for the Germanwings Crash?

Published by under Healthcare Reform

Recently, co-pilot Andreas Lubitz locked himself in the cockpit of a Germanwings plane and intentionally caused the plane to crash, killing himself and 149 passengers and crew. We are learning new information daily. Apparently, he had a doctor’s note declaring him unfit for flying on the date he crashed. And, he apparently sought help in the past for a psychiatric condition. Details are scarce. Still, no one in close proximity to Lubitz said they saw this coming. Everyone expressed shock and surprise.


Will Lubitz’s doctors be blamed, in part or in full? And, if so, what kind of liability might that trigger?

Continue Reading »

4 responses so far

Mar 06 2015

Timing of Pulling the Plug

Published by under Healthcare Reform

What’s the difference between an optimist and a pessimist?


An optimist believes these are the best of times.


A pessimist is afraid he’s right.


It’s an old joke. But, it exemplifies how we expect things will turn out.

Continue Reading »

2 responses so far

Feb 27 2015

Nationalizing Expert Review Panels

Published by under Healthcare Reform

A handful of states mandate that medical malpractice cases first be reviewed by panels of experts. These panels rule on the merits of a case. They conclude the standard of care was violated or it wasn’t.


In the states that use such panels, such as Indiana and New Mexico, the panel’s decision is not binding. A plaintiff’s attorney can ignore a smack-down and take the case to trial. But, the panel gives a strong signal as to how the winds will blow. Many – but not all – plaintiff’s attorneys take the hint.

Continue Reading »

5 responses so far

Feb 20 2015

That’s a Bummer

Published by under Healthcare Reform

Dr. Orlito Trias was sued for negligence. The lower court awarded $4 million in damages.


A summary of the case was presented on the Connecticut State Medical Society website.


The case claimed that during a preoperative consultation for the removal of fibroid tumors, Dr. Trias failed to “strongly advise” the plaintiff that her family history of breast cancer greatly increased her risk for developing ovarian cancer. Although clear from the medical records that the risk of ovarian cancer was discussed, the plaintiff claimed that she was not “strongly advised” to undergo removal of her ovaries. The plaintiff subsequently developed ovarian cancer.

Continue Reading »

20 responses so far

Feb 13 2015

Notes from a Plaintiff’s Attorney: Medicolegal issues in treating minors – Part 2

Published by under Healthcare Reform

We continue with our series of general educational articles penned by one attorney, an MD, JD, giving you a view of the world through a malpractice plaintiff attorney’s eyes. This attorney is a seasoned veteran.  The series includes a number of pearls on how to stay out of harm’s way. While I do not necessarily agree with 100% of the details of every article, I think the messages are salient, on target, and fully relevant.  Please give us your feedback – and let us know if you find the series helpful.

We previously addressed who can determine treatment for the minor patient (addressed her in Part 1). We now move to confidentiality / records access issues for the minor patient in Part 2.

  1. Confidentiality issues and access to records.

Continue Reading »

One response so far

Next »