I have a friend that was misdiagonised by 2 different Dr.s . Her foot is dislocated and fractured. She was told she had a severe sprain and that was it. She couldn't stand the pain so she went to another Dr. he told her that she waited to long to see a Dr. She has seen 3 Surgens and only one of them will attempt to do the surgery she has to have. They have told her now she may not be able to walk on her foot again. Does she have a law suit against the Docotrs??

Ask a lawyer. If she does have a case, the lawyer can pursue it for her.

Hello Y:

I think she does.

excon

I have a freind that was misdiagonised by 2 different Dr.s . Her foot is dislocated and fractured. She was told she had a severe sprain and that was it. She couldnt stand the pain so she went to another Dr. he told her that she waited to long to see a Dr. She has seen 3 Surgens and only one of them will attempt to do the surgery she has to have. They have told her now she may not be able to walk on her foot again. Does she have a law suit against the Docotrs????
I would think so BUT keep in mind she needs Physicians to testify that the first two made mistakes, those mistakes caused additional harm - and it is difficult and expensive to have one Doctor testify against another.

I have a freind that was misdiagonised by 2 different Dr.s . Her foot is dislocated and fractured. She was told she had a severe sprain and that was it. She couldnt stand the pain so she went to another Dr. he told her that she waited to long to see a Dr. She has seen 3 Surgens and only one of them will attempt to do the surgery she has to have. They have told her now she may not be able to walk on her foot again. Does she have a law suit against the Docotrs????
It is certainly worth looking into. Failure to promptly operate on an ankle/foot fracture can often give rise to liability for malpractice. The only problem in many circumstances, it is acceptable to wait on surgery until swelling subsides. However, if they just flat out missed the diagnosis, you will e in better shape. What state are you in?

We are in the state of Fl. I think now things may have changed. My friend has seen a Dr at Shands and now they are telling her she may never get to use her foot again.

I have a few questions:

1. How did her foot get hurt to begin with? Was she able to walk on it?
2. How long was her foot hurting before she went to the doctor?
3. What did the first 2 doctors do to assist her? Did they do x-rays? Did they provide her with a cast or with crutches, or with a pain reliever? What instructions was she given as to caring for her foot when it was diagnosed as a sprain?

1. Someone stole her car and hit her with it. She was knocked out and the peramedics tried to get her to stand she wasn't able to.
2. she went to the er right after the accident. 1st hosp gave her pain med and told her she had a sprain.
3. She was in the er yes they did x- rays. I took her to Lakeland er the following week and they gave her the same info. Keep it elevated, pain pills and air cast

There is a big difference between "strain" [ an injury to the ligaments ] and dislocation [joint out of place] AND fracture [ break in the bone which could further be subdivided into stres, non- displaced and displaced. ]


A strain is presumed clinically when the x-rays show no abnormalities.


THe only objective case the person has is if the initial x-rays do show a fracture.
There are plenty of bones in the foot / ankle so it may difficult to detect a small fracture.

Even then stress or non displaced fractures do not necessarily require immediate surgery.

THe only objective case the person has is if the initial xrays do show a fracture.
There are plenty of bones in the foot / ankle so it may difficult to detect a small fracture.

Even then stress or non displaced fractures do not necessarily require immediate surgery.

That isn't really true. There could be liability for malpractice arising out of several other scenarios. Not only missing a fracture on the original X-ray, but failing to take an X-ray from an angle that would appropriately visualize the area of the fracture.

The key to a case like this is to show two thing:

1. That the failure to detect a fracture was a departure from the standard of care in the community;

2. That the failure to detect the fracture in a timely manner was a proximate cause of the necessity for surgery, and/or future complications.

My experience in these types of cases is that doctors will usually defend the case from a proximate cause angle, rather then saying they didn't screw up the diagnosis (its tough to argue with a film). Generally, they say that any type of non/mal union was the result of factors unique to the patient, and that operating alone won't necessary foster bone healing.

Long story short, it is usually a VERY bad idea to say things like "the only objective case a person has is......." as there are always a number of options in these types of cases.

Sideout:

Agree with your points

1] That is why both sides of the case will have their own "expert" medical opinions regarding the same evidence, and come to their own conclusions. The departure from the standard medical practice has to be proven. If both sides get expert radiologist opinions that there was indeed no fracture, then the case falls apart.


2] This is more difficult and subjective. It amounts to "what if" questions.
If there was a fracture - depending on type, - both sides will trot out "expert'
Orthopedic and or physiatry opinions on what should have been done.
One side might say that the injury occurred after the event in question or could not
Have caused the injury, the other side will say the injury was due to the event ,
Misdiagnosis , and malpractice.

sideout:

agree with your points

1] That is why both sides of the case will have their own "expert" medical opinions regarding the same evidence, and come to their own conclusions. The departure from the standard medical practice has to be proven. If both sides get expert radiologist opinions that there was indeed no fracture, then the case falls apart.


2] This is more difficult and subjective. It amounts to "what if" questions.
If there was a fracture - depending on type, - both sides will trot out "expert'
orthopedic and or physiatry opinions on what should have been done.
One side might say that the injury occurred after the event in question or could not
have caused the injury, the other side will say the injury was due to the event ,
misdiagnosis , and malpractice.
Well, there will certainly be opinions on both sides from experts. But a MAJOR part of a successful malpractice case from the plaintiffs angle is finding that expert who will support your theory of malpractice. It sounds like the OP has already gotten over that hurdle in that she already has a doctor who has negatively opined regarding the care of her prior doctors. It's probably irrelevant at this point as we haven't heard back from the author yet.