Differences Between Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury

While it is a subset of personal injury law, medical malpractice is considerably more complex than the other types of cases that fall into the same category. read this information to learn more about medical malpractice. While similar in some respects, there are key areas where it differs substantially. Here's a quick summary of where they differ the most.

The statute of limitations for Utah medical malpractice cases is different from other personal injury claims. The statute of limitations governs how long a person can take to file a case. For standard personal injury, the statute of limitations is four years. You only have two years in which to file a medical malpractice claim. For any personal injury case, including medical malpractice, if the defendant is a government entity, you only have one year, regardless of the type of case it is.

The starting point from which the countdown begins is also different. If you were filing an auto accident case, you would have to file within four years of the date of the accident. In a medical malpractice case, you have two years not from when the incident occurred, but rather from when you discovered that it had occurred.

How much you can collect in non-economic damages is also different. Best information about medical malpractice can be read at http://www.parkerandmcconkie.com/medical-malpractice. These are the damages awarded for things like emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life. The cap for non-economic damages for a standard personal injury claim, such as in an auto accident, is $400,000. The cap for a medical malpractice claim, on the other hand, is only $250,000. This limit dictates the amount you can collect, not that can be awarded by the jury. A jury might decide you deserved $4 million, but you could not collect more than $250,000 from the defendant.

Medical malpractice cases are more likely to need the services of expert witnesses than other personal injury claims. In many standard personal injury cases, the evidence is rather clear and can be presented by the attorneys or regular witnesses. With medical malpractice, the plaintiff must establish for the court what a doctor should have done (the standard of care) and why failing to do that matters so much. This requires the testimony of someone who knows these things and can explain them to the court. When dealing with medical malpractice, you may need several experts, usually doctors, who can testify on your behalf to explain these things to the court.

This is an abbreviated list, of course. To learn more about medical malpractice, click here. To get a better idea of what a case like this entails, please contact a Utah medical malpractice attorney. They will be able to guide you through the system and help you file your case.