Dog bites can lead to severe physical and emotional injuries, and understanding the laws surrounding these incidents is crucial. Washington D.C.’s laws regarding dog bites are somewhat unique, as the District operates under a mix of “strict liability” and the “one bite rule.”
RELATED CONTENT:
Below are settlement amounts and jury payouts in Kentucky medical malpractice lawsuits. This page also summarizes key areas of Kentucky malpractice law.
According to Jury Verdict Research, the average personal injury jury verdict in Kentucky is $518,387. The median jury verdict in Kentucky is $40,000. We drill down on Kentucky malpractice.
This page looks at settlement amounts and jury awards in personal injury cases in Washington DC. Our attorneys also offer an analysis of Washington DC personal injury law.
As a personal injury victim pursuing a compensation claim in DC, it’s natural to want to understand the potential range of settlement payouts for your claim. After all, monetary compensation is ultimately the goal of a personal injury or wrongful death claim.
This page aims to explore how personal injury cases have been resolved in Illinois, allowing you to compare your claim with Washington DC personal injury settlement statistics and examples of settlements and jury awards.
This page will look at medical malpractice cases involving birth injuries in Washington state. We will review the key points of Washington tort law and examine the settlement value of Washington birth injury lawsuits based on reported settlements and trial verdicts.
A birth injury is defined as a physical injury, damage or harm inflicted on a baby because of something that occurs during the process of childbirth (or pregnancy). Birth injuries differ from birth defects in that they are not genetically inherited. Instead, birth injuries are a product of events going wrong during delivery, usually as the result of medical negligence.
This page will explore medical malpractice cases involving birth injuries in Washington D.C. Our lawyers examine key aspects of Washington D.C. malpractice law and evaluate the settlement amounts and jury payouts of District of Columbia birth injury lawsuits based on reported settlements and trial verdicts.
A birth injury refers to physical harm, damage, or injury inflicted on a baby due to events during pregnancy or childbirth. Birth injuries differ from birth defects as they are not genetically inherited. They can happen without medical malpractice. But, too often, they result from complications during delivery, often due to medical negligence.
Last week, the intermediate-level appeals court of Massachusetts reestablished a lawsuit accusing a hospital’s staff of causing a post-surgery patient to fall and break her hip. In Owens v. Erazo (22-P-1204), the appeals court disagreed with a medical malpractice tribunal that had categorized the incident as simply an “unfortunate medical result.”
A panel of three Appeals Court judges reversed a Suffolk County judge’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit. The suit alleges that a nurse and physical therapist, employed by Brigham & Women’s Faulkner Hospital, failed in their duty to accurately assess the fall risks for a patient. This alleged failure led to the patient falling and fracturing her hip after undergoing hip surgery.
Ms. Owens, the plaintiff, had been hospitalized after undergoing hip surgery, during which she experienced an injury. As a result, she instigated a medical malpractice lawsuit against Erazo (R.N.), Agustin (P.C.A.), O’Hara (P.T.), and Brigham & Women’s Faulkner Hospital. The defendants, Erazo and O’Hara, subsequently put forth requests for a medical malpractice tribunal, as described in G. L. c. 231, § 60B.
In Cenni v. Laboratory Corp., a New Jersey appellate decision that came down yesterday takes an interesting look at a lab error lawsuit against Quest and Lab Corp and how the discovery rule and the fictitious party rule work in New Jersey.
The plaintiff filed a misdiagnosis against LabCorp, alleging it inaccurately interpreted the plaintiff’s annual Pap smear slides, a critical component of cervical cytology exams. The plaintiff argued that due to this error, her cervical cancer diagnosis for years, by which time the cancer had already progressed to stage four.
In a recent malpractice opinion in Acree v. Bayhealth Med. Ctr., a Delaware Superior Court provides a ruling of interest to any Delaware medical malpractice lawyer looking to find more deep pockets that are vicariously liable for a health care provider’s care. In this case, the focus is on a staffing agency that provided an orthopedic surgeon to a hospital.
An orthopedic surgeon performed an arthroscopic procedure on a patient’s right knee at a medical center owned by Bayhealth. Complications and a post-operative infection arose after the surgery, which, the patient alleges, will necessitate a total knee replacement.
RELATED CONTENT:
In a new Idaho Supreme Court case, the court issued an important ruling in a medical malpractice case as to whether a section of the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA) shields the state and its employees from liability. The case also gives us a good look into SSRI malpractice lawsuits in 2024.
Lawsuit Information Center