Recent Arizona Ruling Makes Medical Malpractice Suits More Difficult for Injured Patients
February 10, 2012
Medical mistakes, including misdiagnoses, surgical errors or incorrect medications, can cost patients their health, not to mention their lives. According to the Institute of Medicine, as many as 98,000 Americans die every year due to preventable medical errors. Medical malpractice lawsuits, a form of personal injury lawsuits, are designed to protect victims of errors made by doctors, hospitals, clinics, pharmacists and other medical figures. However, a recent Arizona court ruling may make it more challenging for medical malpractice and wrongful death plaintiffs to prove wrongdoing on the part of the state’s medical community.
The medical malpractice lawsuit in question was on the behalf of Judy Benkendorf, an Arizona woman who developed blood clots in her lung following a 2003 surgical procedure to remove her cancerous left kidney. She was prescribed medication by doctors to help reduce blood clots, but she died two years later as a result of a massive brain hemorrhage.
Allen Benkendorf, Judy’s husband, filed a medical malpractice suit against the clinic who treated her, claiming that her death was the result of their negligent monitoring and adjusting of her blood clot medication. However, he was unsuccessful in blocking the testimony of Dr. Kurt Schroeder, the defense’s medical expert who testified that Judy’s death could have been attributed to a number of other factors, including her age, hypertension and possibility of stroke. The jury ruled in the clinic’s favor. Allen filed an appeal on the grounds that defendants must present alternate causes of injury that are probable, not just possible. His claim was struck down by the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Judge Michael Brown, writing on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel, said plaintiffs in medical malpractice lawsuits must prove that their injury was, beyond a shadow of doubt, caused by an act or omission on the behalf of the defendant. Defendants in medical malpractice suits, however, only have to prove that something else could have caused the injury.
However, Brown said that this ruling does not give medical malpractice defendants license to assert that anything else could have caused the injury without providing evidence that validates that claim. Also, plaintiffs still have the opportunity to cross-examine the defense’s witnesses and present evidence that negates their testimonies.
The long-term implications of this ruling, including how much of an advantage this gives doctors and hospitals, are yet to be determined. However, it does emphasize the value of having an experienced personal injury lawyer on your side in medical malpractice cases.
The personal injury attorneys of Skousen, Gulbrandsen & Patience offer more than 50 years of experience fighting for the rights of injured patients. If you’re considering bringing a medical malpractice or wrongful death lawsuit, please contact us for a free initial consultation.
Disclaimer: The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use and access to this website or any of the links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.





