In Yvonne Newsome v. Homier Memorial Hospital, et al., No. 10-CC-0564, Supreme Court of Louisiana (April 9, 2010), the plaintiff Yvonne Newsome sued Clint C. Butler, MD, John H. Smith, MD, and Homer Memorial Medical Center for medical malpractice. Sometimes, the jury system is the only protection people have when they go against educated, top-ranked physicians.
Newsome may be persuasive precedent for a personal injury case in Chicago, IL when determining medical malpractice. Medical malpractice is professional negligence by a medical provider who does not provide the reasonable standard of care to a patient, that the medical community provides, and causes injury or death to the patient. The defendants treated Newsome from December 21, 2004 to December 28, 2004.
Licensing boards require health care providers to have professional liability insurance to offset costs of medical malpractice lawsuits. With insurance, providers have the advantage of free defenses from insurance policies. Medical malpractice cases normally do not settle until an injured party files a lawsuit and after discovery. In Newsome’s case, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment after each party conducted discovery in the form of depositions, interrogatories, and admissions. A party making a motion for summary judgment must have supporting evidence to show there are no disputes on facts, and that the only issues before the court are legal, without the need for a trier of facts.
The issue before the court in Newsome was whether the trial court erred in continuing a hearing for the defendants’ motion for summary judgment making plaintiff’s filing of an expert witness affidavit opposing the motion for summary judgment untimely.
A medical provider in Chicago breaches a duty when it fails to conform to the standard of care in the jurisdiction evidenced by expert testimony. To qualify as an expert in a medical malpractice case, a person needs sufficient knowledge, education, training, or experience in the particular field before the court to give a reliable opinion.
On appeal, the court in Newsome held that the trial court erred in continuing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment hearing because the plaintiff had at least a year to obtain the expert, but waited until the day before the defendants’ hearing to obtain the expert’s affidavit. With the court’s ruling, the case was remanded to the trial level for hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
If a medical provider has failed to provide proper treatment or care, contact a Chicago personal injury attorney for an evaluation of the merits of any medical malpractice case.
Speak Your Mind