An Eye Injury Lawyer Talks About Medical Malpractice Claims and Eye Doctors

The first thing we do—let’s sue all the eye doctors.
This 21st Century update on Shakespeare’s
famous quotation accurately sums up the
attitude of many who have had a less than
optimal medical outcome for their eye condition.

Many people seek legal redress for a bad
medical result for which there is no legal
blame. It may be that medical malpractice
cannot be proven, or it makes no economic
sense to try to prove malpractice.

Often the calls I receive are spurred by
nothing more than hurt feelings. Perhaps
the patient simply felt that the doctor treated
him or her with disrespect and wishes to get
back at the doctor by filing suit. The law
does not provide a remedy for hurt feelings
and, and it makes no economic sense to
pursue a medical malpractice case unless
the damages are severe and the liability
fairly clear.

Medical malpractice litigation involves
injuries suffered as the result of careless
medical practice. There are two important
points to understand about medical
malpractice litigation.

An Eye Injury Lawyer Talks About Statutes of Limitations and Eye Injury Claims

Time’s up!!

When it comes to suing for eye injuries, there’s no time like the present.

The lawsuit must be filed before the expiration of the Statute of Limitations deadline. Statutes of Limitations deadlines for eye injuries vary from state to state and from case to case. Generally, minors have two years from their 18th birthday to sue.

Different Statutes of Limitations deadlines apply to other kinds of injury cases. For example, in medical malpractice cases, in most states, you have a set number of years from the date you first discovered or should have discovered the malpractice to file the lawsuit.

Alabama Code of Alabama Section 6-2-38 2 years

Alaska Alaska Statutes Section 09 10.070 2 years

Arizona Arizona Revised Statutes Section 12-542 2 years

California 1 year for accidents before January 1, 2003 1 year

2 years for accidents after January 1, 2003. 2 year

If the statute of limitations on a claim has not run before the amendment, on 1/1/03, then it is a 2-year statute, so accidents in 2002 can benefit from the 2 year statute of limitations. Calif. Civ. Procedure code Section 335.1 na

Colorado Colorado Revised Statutes Section 13-80-102 2 years

Connecticut Connecticut General Statutes Section 52-584 2 years

D.C. District of Columbia Code Section 12-301 3 years

Delaware Delaware Code Annotated cc 8107, 8119 2 years

Florida Florida Statutes Section 95.11 4 years

Georgia Georgia Code Ann. Section 3-1004 2 years

Hawaii Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 657-7 2 years

Idaho Idaho Code Section 5-219 2 years

Illinois Illinois Statutes Ann. Section 13-202 2 years

Indiana Indiana Code Ann. Section 34-1-2-2 2 years

Iowa Iowa Code Annotated Section 614.1 2 years

Kansas Kansas Statutes Annotated Section 60.513 2 year

Louisiana Louisiana Civil Code Section 3492 1 years

Maine Maine Revised Statutes Ann. Section 752 6 years

Maryland Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code, 3 years

Massachusetts Massachusetts General Laws Ann. Ch. 260, 3 years

Michigan Michigan Compiled Laws Section 600.5805S 3 years

Mississippi Mississippi Code Annotated Section 15-1-49 3 years

Missouri Missouri Statute Annotated 35 Section 516.120 5 years

Montana Montana Code Annotated Section 27-2-204, 27-2-207 3 years

Nebraska Revised Statutes of Nebraska Section 25-208 4 years

Nevada Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated Section 11.190 2 years

New Mexico New Mexico Statutes Ann. Section 37-1-8 3 years

New York NEW YORK CIV. PRAC.R. Section 214 3 years

North Dakota North Dakota Century Code Section 28-01-16 6 years

Ohio Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Section 2305.10 2 years

Oklahoma Oklahoma Statutes Annotated Title 12 Section 95 2 years

Oregon Oregon Revised Statutes Section 12.110 2 years

Pennsylvania 42 PA Con. Stat. Annotated Section 5524 2 years

Rhode Island General Laws of Rhode Island Section 9-1-14 3 years

South Carolina South Carolina Code Ann. Section 15-3-530 3 years

South Dakota South Dakota Comp. Laws Ann. 3 years

Tennessee Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-3-104 1 year

Texas Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 2 Section 16.003 2 years

Utah Utah Code Annotated Section 78-12-25 4 years

Vermont Vermont Statutes Ann. Title 12, Section 512 3 years

Virginia Virginia code Section 8.01-243 2 years

Washington Revised Code of Washington Ann.Section 4.16.020 3 years

West Virginia West Virginia Code Section 55-2-12 2 years

Wisconsin Wisconsin Statutes Annotated Section 893.54 3 years

Wyoming Wyoming Statutes Annotated Section 1-3-105 4 years

For more information about Evan Aidman's work with clients with eye injuries click here: Eye Injury Lawyer

Evan Aidman is the founder and principal of the Law Offices of Evan K. Aidman. Mr. Aidman received a Bachelor's Degree in psychology from the University of Florida where he was elected to the Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society after compiling a near perfect scholastic record. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, an Ivy League Institution, in 1983.

Philadelphia Injury Lawyer Talks About Placing a Monetary Value on an Injury

Some people object to the very concept of compensating injured accident victims with money. They might feel that individuals who have been injured should simply be strong and bear their losses. After all, their no-fault insurance should cover their medical bills and lost wages. It is a good bet that these people have never been seriously injured in an accident. Nor is it likely that anyone in their family has suffered such a fate. Nevertheless, it is fair to debate the issue of directly translating pain into dollars.

Perhaps some feel that it demeans the value of human suffering to place a financial value on it. Yet that is the only method our legal system has to redress the injurious acts committed by negligent motorists, shopowners, corporations, etc. And as long as this method of compensation is available, injured accident victims and their attorneys will seek to receive maximum financial compensation for the injury. That is human nature.

Still others point to the added costs of doing business they feel that injury lawsuits cause. They believe that these added costs are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. There is some merit to this argument. I believe it is worth paying these higher prices in exchange for keeping the right to sue for compensation. Not only can financial compensation help to make the accident victim whole, but the threat of lawsuits keeps companies accountable for their errors. Consider also that The Bible at Exodus 21:25 authorizes financial compensation for pain inflicted by another.

Pending further changes to our present set of negligence laws, individuals are free to look to the courts for financial compensation for injuries caused by the negligent acts of others. Given that this system, or some form of it, is likely to remain in effect for many years to come, the questions becomes: How much is an injury case worth? Unfortunately, there is no way to know for sure what a case might settle for until the medical treatment is concluded and the doctor’s prognosis rendered.

ATTENTION PHILADELPHIA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ATTORNEYS PENNSYLVANIA CLARIFIES MEDICAL EXPERT STANDARD

In what will be viewed by Philadelphia area medical malpractice lawyers as a welcome or dreaded decision, depending on whether the reader is a Philadelphia injury attorney for the plaintiff or for the defense, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has clarified who can testify as an expert on causation in nursing home and hospital negligence cases.
In a 4-2 majority opinion, the Court in Freed v. Geisinger Medical Center and
Healthsouth Corp., made it clear that the strict standards for expert testimony in a professional malpractice case under the MCare Act apply only when opinions are rendered against physicians.

In Freed, the majority written by Justice Debra Todd held that a person “need only possess greater expertise within the ordinary range of training, knowledge, intelligence, or experience” to qualify as an expert witness. Therefore, a nurse could offer her opinion that the care rendered by nurses was negligent, as it fell below the standard of care in the nursing profession AND that the negligent nursing care was the cause of injury and harm to the plaintiff.

In so ruling, the High Court expressly overruled the 1997 case of Flanagan v. Labe that had precluded such testimony as allegedly violative of the intent of the Legislature in promulgating the nursing licensing statute. This precedent was argued to be necessary in order to follow the dictates of the MCARE Act. Justice Todd declared that the express limitations of the MCARE Act had to be strictly construed and, since its language was limited to liability against physicians, it could not be extended to nurses in a case involving nursing care. Nevertheless, in a footnote Justice Todd emphasized that the current decision did not permit a nurse to act as an expert witness in medical professional liability cases against physicians.

This is an important case and will hopefully instruct the Bench and Bar on who may as an expert witness in a professional liability case and the strict construction that must be applied to the limitations imposed by the MCare Act in medical malpractice cases brought in Philadelphia and throughout Pennsylvania against physicians.

The Philadelphia injury lawyers at Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis have been handling medical malpractice cases for decades and are here to evaluate your potential cases with free consultations, make an experienced review of appropriate records and secure appropriate expert witnesses to help you win your case throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.