The problem was that, I have been seeing this doctor for 9 months now and he can't tell me yet what is wrong. Yet my primary doctor tells me the opposite. My results show that their is obviously something wrong. Every time I go with him he tells me to take Ibuprofen and steroids. I feel I am getting worse. Nothing is helping. If I get a second opinion, and the doctor tells me, this is your diagnosis's here is the medication. Why did I have to wait 9 months for the other doctor, when he could have given me a diagnosis from the beginning. I mean that is what he has a degree for! All this problems could have been preventing, if he would have done his job right the first time.
I am looking for the right answer, I want advice from someone that knows the medical laws, and malpractices
guber naculum
You'd have to provide a full description of what is wrong with you, what testing you had done and when, and what each doctor told you along the way.
Diagnosis of tricky disorders or diseases is more of an art than an exact science.
TweetyBird
"The problem was that, I have been seeing this doctor for 9 months now and he can't tell me yet what is wrong" -- Why are you seeing this doctor? Why were you referred? Why are you taking steroids?
"My results show that their is obviously something wrong." -- Results? Test results? Can you provide those?
"If I get a second opinion, and the doctor tells me, this is your diagnosis's here is the medication." -- You can't get a second opinion until you get a first one. And how do you know it's that simple? I'd still like to know why you're seeing this doctor in the first place and why you continue to go back.
"I am looking for the right answer, I want advice from someone that knows the medical laws, and malpractices" -- The definition of malpractice is substandard treatment by a physician or other healthcare professional that directly results in physical or economic damages to the patient. "Substandard" care refers to care that violates normal medical practices. Therefore, there are three factors that must be present to prove medical malpractice: liability, damages and a direct causal link. In order for malpractice to be actionable, injury, loss or damage must be suffered by the person who retained the professional's services.
To meet the requirement of liability, it must first be proven that a professional relationship existed between the patient and health care provider and this is easy. Proving substandard care can be difficult, however, depending on the nature of the violation. Inadequate care in and of itself does not amount to malpractice. Injury, suffering or economic damages must be present and must be a direct result of the negligence.
As far as I can tell, you don't have a grounds for suit.
Orignal From: Is it considered Malpractice If a doctor does not give you a diognosis imediately, and I get worse?
Post a Comment