Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Environmental law governs the variety of environmental issues that affect individuals, corporations, and government organisations. This type of law includes the cleanup of dangerous materials and regulations concerning the use of certain materials. Environmental laws are also put in place to keep public land, the air, and bodies of water as safe as possible.
In some instances, it is necessary to bring companies to trial if they compromise the environmental safety of a community or city. Here are three lawsuits that were beneficial for the environment.
This is one of the most influential environmental cases in the history of the United States. The lawsuit pertained to a Disney ski resort that was in the construction planning stages. The ski resort would be in the Mineral King Valley which is inside Sequoia National forest. The Sierra Club was opposed to the ski resort since construction would interfere with the national park's preservation.
Both sides submitted their appeals and the Supreme Court asserted that the Sierra Club did not have the grounds to sue and only had an interest in the construction. The Sierra Club amended their original complaint to prove that they were permitted to sue. This led to the passing of the National Environmental Policy Act. The act required Disney to submit a statement dealing with how the resort would impact the environment. After seeing that the ski resort would damage the environment, Disney did not move forward with construction.
It has been proven that greenhouse gases have a negative impact on the environment. Before 2007 there were very few rules in place to support environmental protection from greenhouse gases. Due to rising global temperatures, lawmakers and consumers, it became necessary for the government to be obligated to regulate carbon dioxide and other toxic gas emissions that affect the environment and compromise human health. The Supreme Court issued a verdict concerning this issue in mid-2007.
[ymal]
The Supreme Court's landmark ruling came as a result of a case between the EPA and the state of Massachusetts. The state wanted to bring attention to environmental issues that were caused by the government's failure to regulate emissions from automobiles. The Bush administration asserted that it did not have the right to regulate carbon emissions due to the Clean Air Act.
This incident is ongoing and involves a number of high-profile lawsuits. This litigation stemmed from the Deepwater Horizon incident, which changed with the BP oil spill in April 2010, an environmental disaster no one expected. A Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded on the Gulf of Mexico due to BP's negligence, and almost 5 million barrels of oil spilled into the Atlantic Ocean. The incident also claimed the lives of 11 people. About 30% of locals who lived near the site of the spill suffered mental illness as a result of the event, further proving that this incident had a global impact.
BP pleaded guilty in November 2012 and reached a $4.5 billion settlement with the US Department of Justice. BP allotted a budget of $3.5 billion to settle the case, but the costs have gone well beyond this future. About $28 billion has been spent to clean up the oil spill and pay claims; the company may also face up to $18 billion more for penalties.
A personal injury lawyer with a specialty in environmental law can handle your mass tort injury claims. Be sure to gather as many details as possible so you can bring a solid case to court and receive a fair settlement for yourself or your organisation.
International law firm Taylor Wessing has confirmed that it will open an office in Dublin, becoming the latest in a wave of UK firms adjusting to post-Brexit industry restrictions.
The Dublin office, which will be Taylor Wessing’s 29th worldwide, will have a focus on tech and life sciences. Corporate partner and executive board member James Goold and international co-head of life sciences and healthcare Alison Dennis will initially split their time between the firm’s London and Dublin offices, with a co-working space to be used at first.
Goold has been a partner at Taylor Wessing since 2012, joining from Jones Day. Dennis joined the firm last May, having previously spent almost 12 years as head of life sciences at Fieldfisher.
Commenting on the Dublin expansion, Goold said: “Dublin is a thriving, dynamic city and the surrounding areas of Cork and Galway continue to be recognised as amongst the leading tech and innovation hubs in the world. Our strategic growth plans offer opportunities for us to support international technology and life sciences sector organisations with leading advice that will deliver continued success for their businesses.”
Several high-profile UK firms have opened offices in Dublin to better navigate the post-Brexit trading environment. Hogan Lovells announced its expansion in March following similar announcements from Ashurst, Dentons and others.
The Law Society of Ireland announced in November that English- and Welsh-qualified solicitors would be required to have a physical presence in Ireland to maintain their EU practice rights there. In March, it confirmed that English and Welsh solicitors could requalify in the Republic of Ireland without needing to sit extra exams.
[ymal]
The move by Taylor Wessing remains subject to regulatory approval.
Lawyer Monthly hears from Javier Magaña García, Technical Director at Lexsoft Systems, who discusses the benefits of using software to enhance a law firm's knowledge-sharing abilities.
Knowledge management (KM) is experiencing a revival from the early 2000s when there was significant hype around the function. With remote workforces and hybrid work environments set to become commonplace in the post-COVID era, already we are seeing law firms, mid-tier especially, actively considering this function, when pre-COVID they had often considered KM a ‘nice to have’ or even a luxury that was only suited to their larger counterparts. One major reason for this ‘second wind’ is that COVID-19 has hurt intuitive collaboration and informal knowledge sharing in firms, in turn impacting lawyer productivity.
However, firms seriously exploring KM need to be mindful that this function isn’t feasible without document management (DM). Any firm approaching KM in the absence of a comprehensive, single repository where documents are stored, shared, and collaborated on, will find that their efforts will likely fall short in delivering the high level of business benefit that this function is capable of. The situation is similar to ‘trying to run before you can walk’. How can a firm capture, assimilate and reuse knowledge if lawyers aren’t even centrally storing and sharing documents?
In many firms, document sharing is so poor that it’s not uncommon for junior lawyers to resort to searches on Google to look for specific types of legal contract templates or precedents when they potentially have colleagues with the experience and advanced expertise in those areas in-house. This is why KM isn’t just about sharing data – the culture of the firm has a major role to play too.
How can a firm capture, assimilate and reuse knowledge if lawyers aren’t even centrally storing and sharing documents?
For any KM initiative to be effective, well-structured and thorough DM processes must underpin the programme. However, firms often fail to distinguish between DM and KM systems. A DM system is a central repository where a firm classifies and stores the different types of documents its lawyers produce within designated matter workspaces. So, the classification of documents in a DM system is such that by looking in the repository, a lawyer can know what type of a document a particular file is (e.g., a contract, pleadings, a resolution); who it was created for (e.g., client X), or which lawyer worked on it, and so on. Only one of such values is assigned to the metadata underpinning every individual document.
In contrast, a KM system is a repository of selected documents that contain authoritative information. The classification in a KM system will illustrate things like what the document is about (e.g., revenue loss in the UK), what legal information is applied (e.g., tax and labour laws), which lawyers worked on the document, how many other lawyers have accessed the document, in which jurisdictions were they based, and such. Here several such values are attached to the metadata for all the individual documents. It could be as simple as a calendar date or as text-heavy as an abstract of a document – with all of the above-mentioned values.
Integrating DM creates a solid foundation to scale the sophistication of KM capability. For instance, a firm could subsequently integrate the KM system with third-party legal web and content services. So now, a lawyer can search the KM repository for, say: ‘the most-used clauses related to labour laws in the UK' within the documents produced by them individually, or then simultaneously also search across the external databases and content services to find the piece of ‘knowledge’ that is most relevant for the legal issue at hand.
[ymal]
To scale the capability and quality of KM further, the firm could layer on technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning to facilitate highly customisable knowledge. As an example, to help identify the firm’s ‘eminent corporate litigation lawyer in France’, the integrated technologies could enable search based on a pre-defined criteria of who is considered an ‘expert’ – e.g., the individual leads the practice, has ‘X’ number of documents published, is the author of ‘Y’ number of original documents, has ‘Z’ number of documents authored on related subject matters, and such.
Similarly, the system could also be configured to apply pre-defined criteria that combines automated scoring for every search result (e.g., most viewed, appearing most in searches), alongside human judgement-led grading by subject matter experts in the KM department – to give a ‘star rating’ (e.g., one, two or three) to every document or piece of knowledge that is surfaced in a search in the KM system.
It’s not hard to visualise how, as the internal DM and KM repositories grow over time, this captured knowledge and intellectual property could provide value to lawyers – for reuse and even competitive advantage.
Knowledge management is essentially about increasing productivity, sharing and collaboration for business advantage. To this end, a long-term view of KM is essential, and it starts with establishing a solid, future-proof foundation for DM processes. It is the first and most important step for any KM journey.
Magic circle firm Linklaters has met its gender diversity goals amid a bumper partner promotion round.
The firm elected 35 new partners worldwide in its largest partner promotion round since 2007 when 38 lawyers made the grade.
Of the new partners, 14 (40%) were female, exceeding Linklaters’ previous gender target of at least 30%. Additionally, 25% of the new partners promoted in London, New York and Washington DC identified as being from a minority ethnic background, above the 15% target outlined in its race action plan.
Linklaters has recently increased its target for new female partner elections to 40%. Of all its current partners, 23% are female.
Charlie Jacobs, senior partner and chairman at Linklaters, said: “The diversity of talent we see in these promotions, including across practice and jurisdiction, is testament to the strength of our global network and to the firm’s ability to attract, retain and invest in leading individuals."
Geographically, the record promotion round swayed towards mainland Europe, with 15 new partners being promoted across Linklaters’ European network – up from 10 last year. Its UK cohort saw 14 promotions, down by one from last year.
[ymal]
There were also two notable partner promotions in Linklaters’ affiliated firm in China, Linklaters Zhao Sheng, and a further two in Hong Kong.
News of the promotion round came on the same day that fellow magic circle firm Allen & Overy announced the promotion of 30 new partners, 10 of whom were female.
Lawyer Monthly hears from Rupert Smith and Bill Bottomley, Corporate Technical Director and Communications Director at Lifetime Financial, on the growing need for cooperation between the legal and financial sectors.
Over the last decade, access to financial advice has been reducing. If left unchecked, many of our shared clients and prospects could face a less secure future.
Currently, there are only around 27,000 financial advisers in the UK, roughly a fifth of the total number of lawyers. Consequently, access to legal services has grown whilst access to financial advice has shrunk. This has resulted in many people not understanding their complete financial position, including services supplied by lawyers such as Wills, Power of Attorneys (POA) and Inheritance Tax (IHT) and estate planning.
As professionals we understand that, whether face to face or via video conference, professional advice is essential for most people. Technology can help us perform our jobs, but currently robo-advice is not what most clients want, so a solution must be found for a greater number of people to receive sound financial advice.
A major issue for the provision of mass market financial advice is the ageing profiles of many advisers, the majority of whom are approaching retirement. A contributory problem is that many of those people seeking advice are turned away because they do not meet an adviser’s wealth threshold, as the majority of the industry is predominantly interested in high net worth individuals looking for investment solutions.
The financial services industry has also suffered from a small number of providers adopting poor practices over recent years which has damaged the industry’s reputation. To a lesser extent the legal services sector has also suffered from the action of the CMC market, resulting in fewer people seeking the support of advisers.
Over the last decade, access to financial advice has been reducing.
It is unlikely that we will create a financial services industry with enough advisers to support the needs of the population individually. But what we are seeing is a greater emphasis on employers taking a lead in terms of their workforces’ financial welfare.
Uber’s recent offer of Automatic Enrolment pensions to its workers highlights a general acceptance that employers will need to do more in the future to support the financial welfare of their employees. Similar moves are likely with other firms that engage gig economy workers, and other government measures, such as the changes to IR35, are likely to see more self-employed workers move on to the payroll.
Here, there lies an opportunity for both financial advice and consumer legal services. For the last six months we have been trialling a financial advice service that the employer sponsors and is available to all their employees.
This provides access to a captive market with the employer providing the service as part of their compensation and benefits package. The employer covers the cost of an individual’s financial review which provides an employer with an understanding of their total financial situation. This includes their personal and employer sponsored pension, life and other protection products and savings and borrowings. It also covers Wills and POAs with any identified needs being passed on to a lawyer.
From an employer’s perspective this adds significant value in that their employees will better understand the value of their benefits package – which research suggests most employees do not. Given that many employees will have pay freezes for the foreseeable future, boosting understanding of how employee benefits could equate to an extra 3-20% of their salary can be immensely important.
What we are seeing is a greater emphasis on employers taking a lead in terms of their workforces’ financial welfare.
But what is also clear is that there is scope for broadening the offering, including Wills and POAs and extending it to the likes of IHT and estate planning.
We recently conducted a survey amongst nearly 350 employees of an education provider and client HCAT in the North East of England. The survey clearly showed that people do not differentiate between the services of either lawyers or financial advisers and found that the third most important financial subject that they would like to find out more about was Wills. 40% of those surveyed said Wills were a subject of interest. Topping the list was pensions at almost 80%, and savings at 50%, but Wills were more important than mortgages, protection, investments, budgeting, tax breaks and other company benefits.
It is clear, in our experience and based on this type of employee research, that greater co-operation between legal services firms and advisers will be the future.
It’s an unfortunate fact that the actions of a minority of individuals have damaged the reputation of an industry. Part of the problem is that consumers lack the resource and knowledge to carry out the sort of due diligence that a corporate entity would.
In our vision of how mutual cooperation would allow for an employer-centric offering, the problem is easily resolved. Identifying the wheat from the chaff is much easier when an employer is in control as they can carry out a proper due diligence process of suppliers. This will ease the process when either a lawyer or financial adviser already offers services to an employer and wants to extend this to a broader service supporting their employees.
[ymal]
Setting up an advice service for employers will reap returns long term but requires a significant investment, both in time and money, in the short term.
I foresee a business model where financial and legal services collaborate in offering a joint service to employers and their employees. Such a partnership has never been so timely, and against our current societal and economic backdrop, so important.
An employment tribunal has awarded a total of more than £37,000 in compensation to former staff of collapsed law firm network Kingly Solicitors Limited.
Kingly was a 16-office law firm consolidator that acquired a number of practices across the country since it was established in 2016. It was shut down in an intervention by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in August, one of the largest law firm closures in the regulator’s history.
The SRA’s intervention came after the firm failed to comply with one or more of the terms of its licence, and because there was “reason to suspect dishonesty” on the part of firm manager Nurul Miah. An investigation was then launched into Kingly’s directors and the firm was placed into voluntary liquidation in late September.
More than 180 staff were put out of work by Kingly’s closure, which also left creditors owed almost £17 million. As a result of the SRA’s intervention, staff did not receive a warning, consultation or notice of their redundancy.
Eight claims were brought against Kingly by former staff, which were heard before Employment Tribunal Judge Newburn on 1 February and decided on 1 March. Claims were made for redundancy, breach of contract, unauthorised wage deductions and unfair dismissal.
[ymal]
Five solicitors, one apprentice solicitor and one legal assistant were awarded with compensation. The largest single sum, totalling £19,083, was awarded to one solicitor who claimed for notice and holiday pay, expenses and his contractual bonus.
The eighth claim was dismissed because the claimant had not engaged with the process and failed to attend the hearing.
Lawyer Monthly hears from Eleanor Weaver, CEO of Luminance, on how technology has become integral to the search for top legal talent.
The reality is that today, when it comes to picking a career path, the best and brightest graduates have a lot of options. Whilst 30 years’ ago, a career in a law firm or in a City bank was seen as the aspirational career choice, today’s graduating classes are looking at a more diverse job market and less ‘traditional’ career paths, where the prospect of joining a young and fast-paced tech startup might seem more appealing, for example. Moreover, having grown up with technology at their fingertips, these younger cohorts are in tune with the tools that are out there and can help them progress in their careers.
Tanja Podinic, Global Director of Innovation Programs at the world’s largest law firm, Dentons, recently said to me that the firm are being asked by their junior lawyers: ‘What technology are you using? Will we be exposed to it? How often will we be using it?’ These increasingly tech-savvy incoming trainees expect a certain level of technology adoption as standard in their professional lives, just as it is in their personal lives, and are arriving at their prospective firms equipped with an understanding of how these tools work in practice.
For instance, just last year, Luminance partnered with the Scottish law firm Burness Paull and the University of Glasgow to offer a practical legal technology course to provide law students with an opportunity to learn how to apply artificial intelligence (AI) to a real legal matter, all before stepping foot in a law firm.
These increasingly tech-savvy incoming trainees expect a certain level of technology adoption as standard in their professional lives
It has therefore become clear that firms’ ability to meet the expectations of the upcoming generation and provide the latest technology is an ever more important part of attracting that top talent. But it also works both ways. A recent study by management consultant Robert Half Legal found that more than three out of five employers filling open positions said their hiring decisions are influenced by a candidate’s technical abilities. Developing skills around how to use the latest technology is therefore equally crucial for budding lawyers looking for a competitive edge.
But it’s not just about attracting those bright-eyed young lawyers, it’s also about encouraging them to stay. The legal industry is no stranger to burnout and job dissatisfaction. A report by the Law Society’s Junior Law Division found that 93% of junior lawyers in England and Wales felt stressed in the month before the survey, with one-fifth of respondents reportedly feeling unable to cope on a regular basis.
One of the main causes of stress identified was the high workload, with young lawyers having traditionally been confined to lengthy and laborious tasks such as reading and analysing hundreds – sometimes thousands – of documents in search for relevant clauses or unusual terms, leaving little time for the high-value areas of critical thinking and analysis that they trained for. In some cases, this has been exacerbated by the pandemic, with the perks of most jobs – the networking, socialising and off-site days – gone, leaving only a stripped-back version of young lawyers and their laptops at the kitchen table.
But AI is playing a big role in improving the workload of junior lawyers and, in turn, aiding in the retention of the partners of tomorrow. By helping legal teams read, understand and analyse vast quantities of documentation, whether that’s during a criminal investigation or a corporate transaction, AI is helping lawyers to spend less time trudging through documents and labelling key clauses, and instead focus more time on understanding what the documents mean, drawing the all-important insights and delivering the valued advice to the client in a timely manner.
[ymal]
Crucially, over 70% of trainee lawyers believe that legal technology allows them to focus on more challenging work according to a report we ran at Luminance last year, highlighting how important this type of technology is for job satisfaction and work-life balance. Moreover, advanced collaboration tools are helping young lawyers to secure a tighter feedback loop with more senior colleagues, something which has become ever-more critical since the onset of the pandemic.
Jan Smit, Innovation Manager at Slaughter & May, recently said to me: “For us, it is very important that we have the best legal technology to make sure we attract the best talent and ensure we have it available for the younger generation joining the firm.” Clearly, those firms that provide the right digital tools will be best placed to not only attract the most talented young lawyers, but to retain them.
Taking out a loan is serious business. This is something you should know, considering all the checks required before you are approved for one. As a result, you know how important it is that you keep up with your weekly or monthly repayments. However, what happens when you miss a payment? This article will have the answers, along with advice on how to resolve the problem.
The good news is there are approaches you can take to solve any loan repayment issues you may be suffering. Loan brokers say that “the minute you realise you are in too deep and you have taken on too much is the minute you should contact [your lender]”.
If you don’t tell your lender you are having issues then quite simply they cannot help you. But you may be surprised at the assistance they are willing and able to provide, such as granting repayment extensions and freezing your interest. In the UK, you have rights as governed by the Financial Conduct Authority, and there are also debt advice services that can help you if your debt has become seemingly uncontrollable.
Yet going back to the repercussions of missing a loan repayment, below is what you can come to expect.
Typically, the first consequence of missing a payment is that you’ll receive a warning from your lender – either in the form of an email or a letter, or both. This warning will notify you about the need to make the repayment as soon as possible.
It will also include any charges you may have incurred due to missing payment. This can include interest charges and additional late payment fees. If you’re already struggling with money, these charges can push you into an even bigger financial problem.
[ymal]
Even if you only miss one repayment due to forgetting the due date, this is still going to negatively impact your credit score. This isn’t good for a number of reasons. For a start, it could make it more difficult to take out a different loan in the future.
Alongside that issue, a damaged credit score will lead to issues that range from being rejected for credit card applications to missing out on securing a mortgage for a new home.
Missing just one loan repayment is bad enough. However, what happens if you miss several repayments in a row? Well, along with a default notice, you could find a lender throwing out threats of repossessing your car or home.
You might also not have to deal with your original lender. They can pass your debt onto a specialist debt collection agency, and this can lead to further trouble – such as court action being brought against you.
If a court decision goes against you, you will have to end up paying a lot more than the repayments you missed. Other fees will also be added on top, including court expenses and additional interest, leading to you being further out of pocket. It will also have a negative effect on your credit rating for multiple years.
The GameStop saga stopped the stock market in its tracks earlier this year, with wealthy hedge funds losing millions of pounds. The move was orchestrated on a subreddit thread, with vast numbers of average investors joining forces to push up the share price.
No one can deny the effect was tumultuous. However, what isn't so clear is what will happen in the longer term. The legalities of the subreddit crowd are still in question, yet there's no guarantee that it won't happen again.
While creating a hike in price as significant as GameStop seems unlikely, there is an appetite for a repeat. There are many retail buyers who are keen to snap up shares that hedge funds are shorting in a bid to create another stock market tsunami. So could there be a domino effect following on from GameStop?
The effect on the stock market and share prices may have been immediate, but the legal arguments have been a much slower burn. Regulators in the US and the UK face a very thorny issue trying to ascertain whether the subreddit thread investors did anything wrong.
There are stringent rules affecting stock and Forex exchange in the UK, just like in the US. In particular, market manipulation is illegal. There's no exact definition of what falls within the boundaries of this. However, if you buy shares for the sole purpose of pushing up the price for reasons other than personal gain, that could be argued as being market manipulation. Buying shares in the hope the value will rise, and you'll profit is fine - but that's not exactly what was happening with GameStop.
[ymal]
There’s no clear indicator that what occurred is illegal, but it certainly falls within a shady area.
A large number of the investors who joined in, certainly in the later stages, were just jumping on a trend that could earn them money. That's not the case for those who kicked things off, and that's where there may be problems. However, even then, it's not clear because "pumping" a stock for fun, provided that you're not releasing misleading information, doesn't technically fall foul of the law. There's a strong argument that the subreddit thread didn't have the capacity on their own to change the market substantially. In addition, they didn't release misleading information to induce others to buy. For these reasons, the SEC and FCA may well decide that although dubious, there were no illegal manoeuvres.
There's nothing to stop day traders from doing the same to other stocks in the absence of any action from the regulators. There have already been some rumblings, such as American Airlines, who saw their stock rise by 30% in a single day after it was mentioned on a subreddit.
There are several possible contenders, but the only way investors will see a repeat of GameStop is if they all decide to go after the same stock at once. Some hedge funds have said they will no longer short, but that's not the case for all. There are still some firms that specialise in shorting stock, and subreddit users seem to be determined to make them pay.
Nothing is clear-cut just yet, but some of the stocks being circulated for a possible pump include Palantir, Nokia, Blackberry and AMC. The latter is the hot favourite for any future move, so if you're interested in following this story, be sure to keep a close eye on volume sales for this stock.
Medical malpractice comes in many forms, such as misdiagnosis, wrong medication, foreign objects left in the body after an operation, negligence, and the list goes on. These may later affect the patient in ways like physical or mental pain and extra medical expenses.
The demand to seek reform for ineffective health care due to a medical administrator’s fault continues to increase. Patients have the right to receive compensation for any medical deformity or escalated symptoms resulting from the wrong medical treatment.
Under the law, the steps to seek redress for substandard medical care must be taken by the patients themselves, except when it’s being done on behalf of patients who are dead or children. Here are 6 actions to take after an ineffective medical treatment.
Take action immediately if you feel you’ve been maltreated medically by talking to a medical expert. Taking too long before filing a complaint can be bad for the patient. This is because every state has a time limit for such complaints, which is also legally referred to as the statute of limitations.
The time limit starts counting right from when the patient received the treatment or the day maltreatment was discovered. This statutory time limit necessitates every patient to file complaints as early as possible. There are so many aspects involved in filing a complaint, so it’s crucial to start promptly.
Take action immediately if you feel you’ve been maltreated medically by talking to a medical expert.
The first and most important action to take after medical malpractice is to get good legal advice by hiring a malpractice professional.
Once you’ve retained a good lawyer, you’ll be able to proceed with the lawsuit. Your lawyer will help prove that you’ve been a victim of medical malpractice, and that the hospital and its management have not only been negligent but also guilty of withholding essential information. These things will form the basis of your claim.
It’s not always easy to prove that a doctor was negligent, unless you have all the required documents. There must be a credible witness and satisfactory evidence to present the case. The patient has to affirm that the medical service rendered was inappropriate before taking steps to address the case.
A malpractice lawyer will know the kind of evidence that’s required or considered substantial. They can help you obtain thorough medical records that can prove the extent of the damages the treatment has caused you. The evidence must prove that the services rendered were below not aligned with the accepted standard of care.
Determining the person responsible is not something you can handle on your own. Discussing with a medical malpractice lawyer will help you know exactly who to sue. The fact that medical malpractice happened in a hospital doesn’t make the hospital a culprit; it can be the doctor, nurse, admin staff or the hospital management.
In most cases, if the doctor is an employee in a hospital, then that hospital bears the consequences except if the doctor acts on their own accord without the hospital’s knowledge. Also, if the doctor is an independent practitioner, then they stand as the defendant in the case. Many things are involved in filing the claim. Therefore, a medical malpractice lawyer’s expertise is highly recommended.
Determining the person responsible is not something you can handle on your own.
The patient must be ready to obey the rules attached to filing such cases. It all depends on the laws of the state. In some areas, patients must present the case in the presence of a panel of medical practitioners for review before the case can be considered valid legally.
Other countries require the patient to settle directly with the doctor first before taking any legal action. Drafting and filing the complaint with a medical malpractice practitioner’s help can make the process easier for the patient.
The patient by now must have known the impact of the medical error and the kind of compensation they want. All possible damages may include pain, loss of body part, inability to do certain things, forfeiture of wages, loss of income, lifestyle change, family members being affected due to this, among other things.
The hospital or medical practitioner may accept the fault and be ready to compensate the patient. The patient must know the extent of damage to get the deserved compensation.
[ymal]
Being a victim of ineffective medical treatment can cause lifelong damage. No matter how minor the medical error is, it deserves to be addressed right away to prevent future problems for more people. Following the tips above can help you get started on what to do after an ineffective medical treatment.
