Articles Posted in States

This page looks at settlement amounts and jury awards in personal injury cases in Washington DC. Our attorneys also offer an analysis of Washington DC personal injury law.

As a personal injury victim pursuing a compensation claim in DC, it’s natural to want to understand the potential range of settlement payouts for your claim. After all, monetary compensation is ultimately the goal of a personal injury or wrongful death claim.

This page aims to explore how personal injury cases have been resolved in Illinois, allowing you to compare your claim with Washington DC personal injury settlement statistics and examples of settlements and jury awards.

This page will look at medical malpractice cases involving birth injuries in Washington state. We will review the key points of Washington tort law and examine the settlement value of Washington birth injury lawsuits based on reported settlements and trial verdicts.

What is a Birth Injury?

birth injury is defined as a physical injury, damage or harm inflicted on a baby because of something that occurs during the process of childbirth (or pregnancy). Birth injuries differ from birth defects in that they are not genetically inherited. Instead, birth injuries are a product of events going wrong during delivery, usually as the result of medical negligence.

This page will explore medical malpractice cases involving birth injuries in Washington D.C. Our lawyers examine key aspects of Washington D.C. malpractice law and evaluate the settlement amounts and jury payouts of District of Columbia birth injury lawsuits based on reported settlements and trial verdicts.

What Is a Birth Injury?

A birth injury refers to physical harm, damage, or injury inflicted on a baby due to events during pregnancy or childbirth. Birth injuries differ from birth defects as they are not genetically inherited. They can happen without medical malpractice. But, too often, they result from complications during delivery, often due to medical negligence.

Last week, the intermediate-level appeals court of Massachusetts reestablished a lawsuit accusing a hospital’s staff of causing a post-surgery patient to fall and break her hip. In Owens v. Erazo (22-P-1204), the appeals court disagreed with a medical malpractice tribunal that had categorized the incident as simply an “unfortunate medical result.”

A panel of three Appeals Court judges reversed a Suffolk County judge’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit. The suit alleges that a nurse and physical therapist, employed by Brigham & Women’s Faulkner Hospital, failed in their duty to accurately assess the fall risks for a patient. This alleged failure led to the patient falling and fracturing her hip after undergoing hip surgery.

Ms. Owens, the plaintiff, had been hospitalized after undergoing hip surgery, during which she experienced an injury. As a result, she instigated a medical malpractice lawsuit against Erazo (R.N.), Agustin (P.C.A.), O’Hara (P.T.), and Brigham & Women’s Faulkner Hospital. The defendants, Erazo and O’Hara, subsequently put forth requests for a medical malpractice tribunal, as described in G. L. c. 231, § 60B.

In a new Idaho Supreme Court case, the court issued an important ruling in a medical malpractice case as to whether a section of the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA) shields the state and its employees from liability. The case also gives us a good look into SSRI malpractice lawsuits in 2024.

Facts of Mattison v. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare

Vermont has been an epicenter of clergy sex abuse, most notably with Roman Catholic Church.  The Church has made great progress since the days of ignore and coverup but does not heal the scars.

Clergy sex abuse lawsuits against the Catholic Church began earnest in the early 2000s, following similar revelations in other parts of the United States. Survivors of abuse, many of whom had carried their burdens in silence for years, were inspired to heroically speak out. The Church was accused not only of harboring abusive clergy but also of systematically covering up their misconduct.

In Kipfinger v. Great Falls Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, the Montana Supreme Court reinstated a medical malpractice birth injury lawsuit against the remaining defendant, who had not yet settled the claim.

Facts

A pregnant woman arrived at Benefis Hospital in Great Falls, Montana, past her expected due date. An independent OB/GYN on call examined the patient’s prenatal records and found nothing significantly noteworthy. An attending nurse placed an electronic fetal heart rate monitor (EFM) on the woman’s abdomen, producing a fetal heart rate (FHR) record in relation to her contractions. This data can indicate whether the fetus is sufficiently oxygenated or at risk of hypoxic brain injury due to low oxygen supply.

Oklahoma’s average malpractice award payment is $230,787. The national average is $285,218.  Other personal injury cases in Oklahoma are more reasonable.  So what is the problem with malpractice cases?

There is no problem.  There WAS a problem.   Oklahoma Statutes Section 23-61.2 limits non-economic damages to an extremely harsh cap of $350,000.  The Oklahoma Supreme Court wisely overturned this law.  But cap – the expectation of it passing – and the uncertainty surrounding it has a chilling impact.

Malpractice Settlements and Verdicts in Oklahoma

In this post, we will provide an overview of the law of personal injury in Montana. We will also provide summaries of recent jury verdicts and publicly reported settlements in Montana injury cases.

Montana 3-Year Statute of Limitations in Injury Cases

Like all states, Montana has a strict deadline for how long a plaintiff can wait before filing a civil lawsuit. This law is known as a statute of limitations. If the plaintiff does not file their case before the statute of limitations expires, they will lose their right to sue.

Contact Information