The Definition of Malpractice

Posted by Anthony Lee Nov 22, 2008

Once in a while, a medical doctor may do harm to a patient with a diagnostic test or treatment. This may involve malice (awareness of likely negative consequences), incompetence (significant accidental injury to the patient), or ignorance (not doing something that should be done or doing something that shouldn't). These three types of situations are collectively considered medical malpractice, for which a patient can file a lawsuit if there is strong suspicion of malpractice.

Although it is true that medical malpractice results in negative clinical outcomes, not all negative clinical outcomes come from malpractice. From experience and observation, I've seen patients who get worse or die despite all appropriate measures, such as a patient whose cancer already spread to the rest of the body at the time of diagnosis. Such cases generally don't qualify as malpractice. However, some situations fall into a borderline gray zone, like a patient who dies of an unexpected or rare cause that only the keenest physician could consider the possibility of.

Perhaps the best way to determine malpractice is to understand one important concept: standard of care. Did the doctor do what most qualified and trustworthy doctors would do? If so, then he or she met standard of care and seldom has reason to get sued. I say this because I've seen cases that deserve lawsuits and cases that don't go as the patient or patient's family expects but still lead to lawsuits because of strong emotions. If the latter gets out of control, it may ultimately discourage current and aspiring doctors from practicing.

So if any patient unexpectedly doesn't head in the desired direction, ask yourself if standard of care was met. Then you'll know if you have a legal case or not.