Home Phone
  1. Home
  2. Knowledge Base
  3. Getting Started Medical Malpractice
  4. Standard of Care for Medical Malpractice in Florida

Standard of Care for Medical Malpractice in Florida


Medical malpractice lawsuits in Florida involve an acceptable standard of care – this refers to the level of skill, treatment and skill similar health care providers accept as appropriate based on all relevant circumstances and prevailing professional norms in the medical community. Each type of service or treatment has a separate standard.

Key Points

Definition: A standard of care refers to the level of expertise that an adequately qualified health care provider would offer their patients based on their background and medical community knowledge.

Context-Specific: Standard variations depend on various aspects, including medical practice type and geographical area.

Established by Expert Testimony: Expert witnesses provide important testimony in legal cases concerning medicine and health-care matters. They represent healthcare practitioners.

Breach of Standard: Breach of standard occurs when health care providers fail to adhere to established levels of care, potentially resulting in harm or injuries for their patients and constituting grounds for medical malpractice litigation. This breach plays an essential role in medical negligence lawsuits.

Legal Reference: Chapter 766 – Medical Malpractice and Related Matters, Florida Statutes

Case Study Involving Stanard of Care

Illustration of legal professionals in a themed montage with a central figure in a superhero cape standing atop a gear, a large book labeled 'LAW' with a gavel in front, a woman presenting in front of a balance scale, and a man discussing a timeline with financial growth, all set against a purple background with crosshair designs.

I specialize in medical malpractice law. One case, though, made an impressionful impact.

Sarah’s story: thirty-five, vibrant single mom working two jobs to put her son through college who goes into an emergency room after experiencing what they consider to be “minor” allergic symptoms, administered Benadryl, monitored vitals closely before discharging with pat on back from staff ER doctors… five hours later was Sarah found unconscious by her neighbor with brain-damage from anaphylactic shock… my blood ran cold.

The hospital denied negligence, maintaining that they met “standard of care.” However, this phrase can often be seen as the holy grail in medical malpractice litigation; I conducted extensive research. Benadryl alone is usually not sufficient in cases of anaphylaxis; protocol in cases like Sarah’s requires immediate epinephrine injection and close monitoring by hospital personnel – both were missed here.

As our case began to come together piecemeal, medical experts, peer-reviewed journals, a strict timeline that strangled their weak denials were all assembled for trial. Depositions were brutal – with Sarah being forced into having painful depositions that seemed designed only to embroil the hospital lawyer in drama – yet Sarah shone through with courage etched on her face; recounting terror, pain and feeling helpless against hospital negligence that the jury could empathize with all too vividly.

But Sarah had persevered through it all – days were spent deliberating by jurors before their verdict came in: negligence. A wave of relief came over Sarah when the gavel dropped, knowing it wouldn’t bring true justice but at least provided validation that Sarah wouldn’t walk again or see her son graduate; yet hospital authorities would face consequences of their own.

That is precisely what my job entails – not to erase history but rather expose its ugly parts and force accountability on those responsible so perhaps, just possibly, they learn their lessons. Sarah became more than a case file on that day – she stood as proof of both negligence’s human cost as well as our relentless fight for justice even when our wounds remain deep.

Exceeding 100 Million Won in Victories

Our team has exceeded 100 million won in victories for our clients. This large amount is a sign of our strong effort and success in legal challenges. It’s not only about winning money; it’s about fairness and helping you. We’re committed to fighting for your best interests.

Taragin et al’s (1992) landmark study of The Stanard of Care

Taragin et al’s (1992) landmark study fundamentally altered medical malpractice lawsuits. Their groundbreaking work revealed a crucial truth: quality of care versus severity of injury will always take precedence when judging case outcomes in medical negligence lawsuits. This discovery had huge ramifications both for physicians and their patients alike and required them to reassess priorities within legal systems to achieve better results in case outcomes.

Taragin study highlights for physicians the critical nature of adhering to established standards of care in every aspect of practice, be it decisions made, procedures performed or interactions had. Meticulous documentation serves both to protect against unfounded claims as proof of due diligence – making an impressionable case against unfounded claims while attesting to one’s professional obligations and due diligence. By prioritizing quality over expediency while staying abreast of emerging medical guidelines they can significantly lessen their exposure to malpractice suits.

Patients, on the other hand, gain insight into assessing whether a malpractice claim might have merit. While emotional reactions and legal claims often motivate victims of injuries sustained at medical facilities to seek legal recourse against doctors for malpractice claims; Taragin’s research underscores how important quality care received is: did doctors follow established protocols or were there deviations from standard of care that led directly to harm for a particular patient? Seeking expert medical opinions and understanding medical practice nuances can enable patients to make educated decisions regarding potential legal recourse options.

The Taragin study’s influence extends far beyond individual cases; its influence reaches into all corners of medical malpractice law. Courts now place more weight on expert testimony regarding standard of care than emotional appeal of injury claims from patients – creating a more objective, nuanced approach to adjudicating malpractice claims while further encouraging culture of safety and quality within medicine.

Here is a summary of the case study:

FactorInfluence on Litigation Outcomes
Standard of careMore important than injury severity
Defensible careReduces likelihood of liability
StudyTaragin et al. (1992)
Source: Taragin, M., Willett, L., Wilczek, A., Trout, R., & Carson, J. (1992). The influence of standard of care and severity of injury on the resolution of medical malpractice claims.. Annals of internal medicine, 117 9, 780-4 .

What Our Clients Say

picture of a client folding arms smiling

Percy was great! He is professional, understanding and worked diligently until the end! Thanks for your hard work. Highly recommend!!!! – (5/5 Review)

Leslie Jimenez – Client

Hey, Have you had a Medical Malpractice Occur?

If you believe you have been a victim of malpractice it would be wise to seek advice, from a lawyer who specializes in this area. I can guide you on whether pursuing action’s necessary or appropriate in your situation.

Was this article helpful?

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *