Amputation of foot

[doucar]

They take the cases on contingent, if the believe it is financially significant enough to go to all the expense of a lawsuit, One of the ways they learn that is to have the medical records examined by a doctor, in many states this is required before they can file the lawsuit. Some firms are finacially sound enough to absorb that cost initially others are not. It may be this firms way of determining how serious you are,

 

[quincy]

I guess this is where I’m ignorant. I thought lawyers took mal med cases on a contingent bases but maybe that’s personal injury. I also thought that if I did pay they would at least file and let the court decide it out. Instead I’m paying $3000 to have them read a few pages of my medical records that I supplied.

There are several reasons why medical malpractice attorneys will decline to take a case, or offer to take a case on a contingency basis, or offer to take a case but require payment upfront for their services.

Although it is possible that a few of the attorneys you contacted already have heavy caseloads and lack the time necessary to invest in another case, a common reason for an attorney declining a case on a contingency basis would be that the attorney feels any damages that might be negotiated in a settlement or awarded after a successful trial would not be enough to cover his own costs. Attorneys naturally want to be compensated fairly for their work.

What I suggest you do before setting up an appointment with another lawyer is to set up an appointment with a medical doctor (or two) who specializes in diabetes. Take your medical records with you. Having this independent medical opinion can not only better help you assess your situation, it could help you, and possibly an attorney, decide whether there is a legal action worth the (generally high) costs of pursuing.

It can be important to note that, even if you have trouble finding a medical malpractice attorney to handle your case, this does not necessarily mean there was not malpractice. It just means that you might be limited to reporting the doctor to the medical board for an investigation and possible disciplinary action.

Good luck.

edit to add: Are you looking to recover more than $15,000? If not, you may have another option.

 

[Jak411]

There are several reasons why medical malpractice attorneys will decline to take a case, or offer to take a case on a contingency basis, or offer to take a case but require payment upfront for their services.

Although it is possible that a few of the attorneys you contacted already have heavy caseloads and lack the time necessary to invest in another case, a common reason for an attorney declining a case on a contingency basis would be that the attorney feels any damages that might be negotiated in a settlement or awarded after a successful trial would not be enough to cover his own costs. Attorneys naturally want to be compensated fairly for their work.

What I suggest you do before setting up an appointment with another lawyer is to set up an appointment with a medical doctor (or two) who specializes in diabetes. Take your medical records with you. Having this independent medical opinion can not only better help you assess your situation, it could help you, and possibly an attorney, decide whether there is a legal action worth the (generally high) costs of pursuing.

It can be important to note that, even if you have trouble finding a medical malpractice attorney to handle your case, this does not necessarily mean there was not malpractice. It just means that you might be limited to reporting the doctor to the medical board for an investigation and possible disciplinary action.

Good luck.

edit to add: Are you looking to recover more than $15,000? If not, you may have another option.

thank you! This makes sense! It almost seemed like the lawyers each sent this blanket statement that they couldn’t help me and to seek council elsewhere. No reasoning behind it so I was wondering if in fact just like everyone that they are either short staffed or can’t take any new case loads.

I appreciate everyone’s input as I’m trying to learn as I go.

I don’t know what dollar amount is warranted in this case. I’d like to be compensated for my medical appliances afterwards, the value of not participating in things even such as driving But most of all the time with family and doing the things we loved liked hiking at Gatlinburg, going to the beach and other walking adventures.

 

[quincy]

thank you! This makes sense! It almost seemed like the lawyers each sent this blanket statement that they couldn’t help me and to seek council elsewhere. No reasoning behind it so I was wondering if in fact just like everyone that they are either short staffed or can’t take any new case loads.

I appreciate everyone’s input as I’m trying to learn as I go.

I don’t know what dollar amount is warranted in this case. I’d like to be compensated for my medical appliances afterwards, the value of not participating in things even such as driving But most of all the time with family and doing the things we loved liked hiking at Gatlinburg, going to the beach and other walking adventures.

For most medical malpractice claims in Indiana, the injured party will ask for reasonable compensation, with “reasonable” determined through a settlement or by a judge and jury after the presentation of evidence. You do not state a specific figure but instead need to justify through recitation of past, present and future expenses an award of damages enough to cover your losses.

In Indiana, however, an injured party also has the option of suing for up to $15,000. This is similar in some ways to filing a small claims lawsuit. This is described in the Indiana Medical Malpractice, Article 18, link that I provided earlier.

Chapter 8 of Article 18 speaks to the commencement of a medical malpractice action. See 34-18-8-6: https://casetext.com/statute/indiana-code/title-34-civil-law-and-procedure/article-18-medical-malpractice/chapter-8-commencement-of-a-medical-malpractice-action/section-34-18-8-6-claims-not-greater-than-15000-commencement-of-action-dismissal-without-prejudice

I have no idea if this is something that you can or should pursue. Again, you will want personal advice and direction from an attorney in Indiana experienced in Indiana medical malpractice claims. You might have to pay for this review so you will need to decide if the cost is worth it.

I am sorry that your life has been altered so drastically. I can understand how difficult the necessary adjustments in your daily life must be. I just don’t know if there is a legal remedy available. For that you will need to find local legal assistance.

Good luck.

 

[Jak411]

Wanted to update a bit!

After so many discussions of my case with every lawyer I could think of they are interested until they find out I’m diabetic and say that diabetics are prone to these foot wounds so we don’t want your case.

This saddens me because I’m in pain daily and can’tdo the things I’ve done before. Today was the first time returning to the beach as I live along Lake Michigan coast line. I used to be able to wear flip flops or water shoes and go into the water. Today theI couldn’t get past the rocky coastline to be able to get in the water and enjoy it.

I know it was mentioned before but I feel I should at least try a small claims case. Lawyers were giving me tips that my case would be hard to prove because I’m diabetic and I’m prone but I think that’s my loaded gun here as I have not had any other problems with my feet. My feet are healthy or as much as could be with regards to the amputation. This dr directly made a hole in my foot that had just healed. It’s in the records, he mentioned puncturing, then sending for X-rays where he was proven wrong every which way.

so my question is do many malpractice cases go to small claims? I’ve been researching and I feel the $200 fee just to face him in court and make him aware what he did is worth it. But then I don’t want to get laughed at. I have until October and I feel like this plays also a big role in why some lawyers won’t take my case.

 

[Zigner]

Are any medical experts willing to testify that the doctor's actions were unreasonable?

 

[Jak411]

Are any medical experts willing to testify that the doctor's actions were unreasonable?

there was only one law firm that would run my case past a medical expert after I paid thousands but that couldn’t even guarantee the law firm would take my case or even file one. I unfortunately couldn’t go through with it as I only have a disability income now.

 

[Zigner]

there was only one law firm that would run my case past a medical expert after I paid thousands but that couldn’t even guarantee the law firm would take my case or even file one. I unfortunately couldn’t go through with it as I only have a disability income now.

Unfortunately, you will need something from an expert to show that what the doctor did was outside the standard of care in the medical field. I believe it's been mentioned before that you getting an infection doesn't necessarily mean that the doctor did anything wrong.

Please don't feel that I am unsympathetic. I just want you to understand the hurdles ahead.

 

[adjusterjack]

there was only one law firm that would run my case past a medical expert after I paid thousands but that couldn’t even guarantee the law firm would take my case or even file one. I unfortunately couldn’t go through with it as I only have a disability income now.

It is common in malpractice contingency cases that the plaintiff pays for the expert separately from the contingency agreement.

It is also common in malpractice cases that there is never a guarantee of a win.

 

[Jak411]

Unfortunately, you will need something from an expert to show that what the doctor did was outside the standard of care in the medical field. I believe it's been mentioned before that you getting an infection doesn't necessarily mean that the doctor did anything wrong.

Please don't feel that I am unsympathetic. I just want you to understand the hurdles ahead.

I’d like to think if it weren’t for the hole he punctured there would have been no way an infection could have set in because like I said I have had no problems with my feet since. I don’t continuously get ulcers. It was one that required a toe amputation because they stuck a hard cast over an infection they should have been treating with antibiotics. I asked for them to remove the cast because I didn’t feel right and lo and behold I had a dead toe. I healed appropriately from that surgery but then get knocked back several steps when he man makes a hole into my foot. Ugh I just wish it were simple.

As always thanks for your input

 

[Jak411]

It is common in malpractice contingency cases that the plaintiff pays for the expert separately from the contingency agreement.

It is also common in malpractice cases that there is never a guarantee of a win.

Understood, thank you!

 

[Zigner]

I’d like to think if it weren’t for the hole he punctured there would have been no way an infection could have set in because like I said I have had no problems with my feet since. I don’t continuously get ulcers. It was one that required a toe amputation because they stuck a hard cast over an infection they should have been treating with antibiotics. I asked for them to remove the cast because I didn’t feel right and lo and behold I had a dead toe. I healed appropriately from that surgery but then get knocked back several steps when he man makes a hole into my foot. Ugh I just wish it were simple.

As always thanks for your input

I understand that a non-existent hole would not get infected. Unfortunately, that does not (necessarily) mean that the doctor was negligent. You would have to prove negligence.

 

[quincy]

I don’t think you have the type of evidence necessary to mount much of a negligence case against the doctor but, if you do not seek to recover any more than $15,000, you can look at the link provided in Post #19 and possibly consider a Section 34-18-8-6 malpractice claim.

 

[not2cleverRed]

I’d like to think if it weren’t for the hole he punctured there would have been no way an infection could have set in because like I said I have had no problems with my feet since.

What you'd "like to think" has negligible legal weight, as you are not a medical expert. You NEED a credible medical expert in order to have a winnable case.

And frankly, anyone with a chronic illness faces limitations as time progresses. It's not always someone's fault.

 

[Jak411]

What you'd "like to think" has negligible legal weight, as you are not a medical expert. You NEED a credible medical expert in order to have a winnable case.

And frankly, anyone with a chronic illness faces limitations as time progresses. It's not always someone's fault.

I understand the chronic illness because I’m also in kidney failure waiting for a dual transplant. I don’t always think it’s someone fault but in this case it’s only obvious, to me anyway.

would having a statement or two from 2 different drs construe as a medical expert?