Taking a moment to remember who pushes such agendas: insurance companies; corporate business; physicians who are incompetent among others. Until embracing their policy, we must question that they have at heart our best interests, or whether their strategy is structured to circumvent transparency and maximize income. I strongly suggest you to visit Joe Stephens auto accident to learn more about this. A person must ask himself several questions before even deciding whether to bring a lawsuit. However, the most important of these issues is why wars have been fought and regimes over the years have been overthrown by citizens seeking freedom and justice guaranteed by our courts?
For any case, a lawsuit is not acceptable, but the decision to seek that right should be an individual decision about what is best for an injured person and his or her family under the circumstances. The doctor whose mistake places a child for life in a wheelchair or a young wife and mother in an early grave should not live with the family that he or she lost. The CEO whose decision to raise income by using a toxic additive does not need to stay in the town that is being polluted by that drug. The administrator of the insurance firm that refuses to pay for care to a chronically ill person who has paid for the service is not allowed to watch the person die because they have not received the medication. Such people should not have to deal with the consequences of their choices and actions and their intent does not influence the injured person’s decision to pursue a case or not to escape accountability.
In addition, those affected by medical negligence also take the personal and social effect of bringing a claim into consideration. Not infrequently, the injured party or their family genuinely likes the doctor who suspects doing harm to them. A person hurt by a medical practitioner is made to fear much more likely that a complaint against the doctor would force the doctor to leave the practice or relocate to a new state. A well planned and well-funded campaign by the medical lobby produces these sentiments. Their message specifically intended to avoid litigation by guilt and fear.
This has been well reported that, not only does New York have one of the country’s largest physician population, but fewer than 5 percent of our physicians are responsible for more than 50 percent of malpractice. Unfortunately, in most cases it’s the physicians who make up the 5 percent who orchestrate the medical lobby’s media and political spin. Instead than concentrating their attention on enhancing the standard of treatment or increasing HMO’s and government medical reimbursement levels, which would help all physicians and, to a large degree, society as a whole, their emphasis is on preventing the most severely injured from seeking justice in trial. Not unexpectedly, such an effect only benefits those doctors who commit malpractice and, generally speaking, harm society.
The decision to bring a case will once again be made on an individual basis. The fact that a person was kindly or gently spoken and maybe not a relative, when they committed an act of malpractice can be a guiding force in an individual decision. The ultimate question for the individual who determines whether to bring a case against a doctor with a pleasant attitude or disposition is whether the wrong done, while evidently unintentional, is one that we would like to repeat. The medical profession, on the whole, is not disciplining incompetence. As such, the only hope of stopping a doctor from performing an unsafe practice or treatment is through the courts. If you make this decision about yourself, a parent or a kid, the problem is less about who we like and more about whether we’d be comfortable knowing that someone else’s kid or loved one has been hurt because we allowed a tailor-made, politically motivated, highly supported and essentially false story about doctors quitting the state to dissuade us from the social good of preventing bad medi
An injured party needs to decide which counsel should prosecute the case on their behalf until it has made the decision to pursue a possible lawsuit. As mentioned above, choosing the right lawyer would entail finding the person best suited to winning the case. Too often they make the decision on the wrong parameters. The physicians, hospitals, insurance providers and corporate wrongdoers who originally caused the accident spent much time and money convincing those affected by their negligence that both lawyers would treat any case with the same relative skill level. We know that the attorney’s lack of understanding, expertise or competence defending a person harmed by negligence, even early on in an investigation, will seriously impair the attorney’s ability to prosecute even the most meritorious case successfully. The role of lawyers in society, which is usually self-inflicted, has led us to a point where the first attorney they see is sometimes employed by an injured person; a relative; a friend; or, the guy who advertises on TV and radio. Although some may be eligible to deal with a case of malpractice, the fact is most won’t. Needless to say, the generally bad results produced by an unqualified lawyer dealing with a complicated case of malpractice exacerbates the low reputation and ability of lawyers in society.
The Stephens Law Firm Accident Lawyers
9039 Katy Fwy #209
Houston, TX 77024