? about Medical Negligence

under what general circumstances would a doctor be held as negligent?


Any accurate answer to that question will probably be too general to be of use to you. The general rule is if the doctor's treatment falls short of the standard of care in like communities, he or she may have acted negligently.

Also, the doctor must use such superior skill or knowledge as he actually possesses. So, a specialist might be held liable where a general practitioner would not.

I feel my doctor misdiagnosed what turned out to be a subdural hematoma...he treated it as a migraine with the only tests run being a urine test for dehydration-

any thoughts on negligence?

Not being a doctor, I could not say whether your doctor fell below the standard of care. But ... even assuming that your doctor did fall below the standard of care, I can say that unless you suffered some actual, demonstrable damages as the proximate result of this failure, you do not have a good medical malpractice case. You did not say what the result of this misdiagnosis was or whether you suffered any type of prolonged pain or now have any long-term health problems as the result.

I've had a couple doctors misdiagnose me, almost resulting in my gallbladder rupturing, which is not a good thing, and despite the fact that I even offered them the correct diagnosis. Nevertheless, other than being pissed off at their incompetence and suffering some pain that I did not need to suffer for about a week, I did not have any long-term health effects or suffer any long-term pain or discomfort. So, there was a clear breach of their duty of care to me, but very little in the way of damages, and therefore no case.