2nd major surgery Is this a malpractice case?

Get Legal Help Today

 Secured with SHA-256 Encryption

2nd major surgery Is this a malpractice case?

At birth I was given something too early
at the hospital causing my digestive
system to become infected and the
removal of a large ammount of both the
large and small intestine along with a
portion of my colon.

I was left with a nasty scar across my
abdomin horozonatlly secured by staples.

On March 2019 I had a second major
surgery removing a large section of scar
tissue along with another portion of my
colon. In addition I was told by the
surgeon that he had to untether my
digestive tract from the walls of my
abdomin which inevitably resulted with a
second scar vertically from my pelvis to
the bottom of my chest.

WHEN I WAS BORN I WAS NOT BORN WITH A
DIGESTIVE INFECTION, DISEASE. ETC ETC.

Asked on April 1, 2019 under Malpractice Law, Missouri

Answers:

SJZ, Member, New York Bar / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney

Answered 2 years ago | Contributor

No, the second surgery does not start the statute of limitations clock running again: the statute of limitations clock runs from either when the alleged malpractice occured or from when you become legally able to bring a lawsuit. In your state, you have two years from the medical procedure (birth) to file the case (or have your parents bring it for you), or alternately must file it by age 20 (two years after becoming an adult; i.e. two years after could bring a lawsuit in your own name). If you are 19 or 20, you are still in time to sue for something which occured at birth; if you are over 20, it is too late and you are barred from bringing a case.
As for whether it is malpractice: that depends upon whether (assuming you are time to sue):
1) You can prove that the injury (e.g. the infection) was due to the hospital's actions--you need medical proof or evidence of this; and 
2) Even if due to the hospital's actions, that what the hospital did was medically negligent or careless: that is, not just that it harmed you, but essentially that no reasonable medical care provider at that time, based on the extent of medical knowledge then, would have done that. The law accepts that sometimes doctors, etc. do everything right but there is still some problem, harm, complication, etc.; to have a viable case, the treatment must have been careless or not meeting then-current medical standards.


IMPORTANT NOTICE: The Answer(s) provided above are for general information only. The attorney providing the answer was not serving as the attorney for the person submitting the question or in any attorney-client relationship with such person. Laws may vary from state to state, and sometimes change. Tiny variations in the facts, or a fact not set forth in a question, often can change a legal outcome or an attorney's conclusion. Although AttorneyPages.com has verified the attorney was admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction, he or she may not be authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction referred to in the question, nor is he or she necessarily experienced in the area of the law involved. Unlike the information in the Answer(s) above, upon which you should NOT rely, for personal advice you can rely upon we suggest you retain an attorney to represent you.

Get Legal Help Today

Find the right lawyer for your legal issue.

 Secured with SHA-256 Encryption