- Thread starter drSix
- Start date
Medical Malpractice
This never used to happen but now is becoming more common with the new Penal Code. You have up to five years from the procedure to claim, but only 3 months from the date you became aware there was a problem. You issue a writ (demanda) and you, the plaintiff can decide if you want to issue it in a penal court or a civil court. In a penal court, under the new Code there are stricter jail sentences for medical malpractice and if you choose the civil court you go for financial compensation. You can't have both.
Matilda
Matilda
Yes it exists and it is winnable but the complete process takes 10 years because they will use every stall tactic in at their disposal all the way to the supreme court..
Best bufet of lawyers on the NorthCoast to deal with this is the Guzman Arisa crew. (http://www.drlawyer.com/ )
Medical liability does not depend on the Penal Code. It has always existed in the DR based on the general liability principles established in articles 1382 and 1383 of the Civil Code.
The total time for the process depends on many factors. Ten years is not the norm. I settled a case for 11 million pesos which was already at the Supreme Court stage in less than five years.
Statute of limitations for civil suits is two years, not 3 months. If the suit is brought alongside a criminal procedure against the doctor (as it has always been allowed under the codes of criminal procedure), it could be much longer.
The total time for the process depends on many factors. Ten years is not the norm. I settled a case for 11 million pesos which was already at the Supreme Court stage in less than five years.
Statute of limitations for civil suits is two years, not 3 months. If the suit is brought alongside a criminal procedure against the doctor (as it has always been allowed under the codes of criminal procedure), it could be much longer.
Last edited:
It's too involved to explain in a post. You'll find attached an article I wrote on the subject in a law journal some time ago... but I can't find how to attach the file!
Understandable.
Maybe, maybe you could answer this simpler question then.
The 1st hospital I went to did not follow any internationally recognized treatment guidelines (American Academy of Pediatrics, World Health Organization) as far as pain control and gave an inappropriate general anesthetic.
The made the problem (broken bone) worse but casting it incorrectly. And, then discharged knowing it was wrong. Had I not gotten copies of the Xrays and read them myself, my daughter would have undoubtedly suffered long term affect. Not to mention the pain they subjected her to.
Hospital #2 gave the proper meds and treatment. She is fine now, but only because we left the other hospital.
So, the question is. Other than the pain and suffering she endured during the procedure, I have no way to prove that what they did would have caused lasting affects, would I need to prove such a thing?
Maybe, maybe you could answer this simpler question then.
The 1st hospital I went to did not follow any internationally recognized treatment guidelines (American Academy of Pediatrics, World Health Organization) as far as pain control and gave an inappropriate general anesthetic.
The made the problem (broken bone) worse but casting it incorrectly. And, then discharged knowing it was wrong. Had I not gotten copies of the Xrays and read them myself, my daughter would have undoubtedly suffered long term affect. Not to mention the pain they subjected her to.
Hospital #2 gave the proper meds and treatment. She is fine now, but only because we left the other hospital.
So, the question is. Other than the pain and suffering she endured during the procedure, I have no way to prove that what they did would have caused lasting affects, would I need to prove such a thing?
Your daughter is fine now, so a malpractice case would be to either prevent doctor/hospital from making the same mistake, revenge, or for money. What are you thinking?
You would need to prove: (a) that the pain treatment was not appropriate, that it did not abide by the lex artis, that is the standard treatment in the DR at the time; and (b) that the inappropriate treatment caused the patient unnecessary pain and extra expenses. To prove (a), you can get through the court the medical records; you'll also need expert witnesses to prove that the treatment was deficient. You can prove (b) with testimony and receipts.