Many medical situations do not necessarily require quick or critical thinking, and doctors can take more time when deciding how to treat a patient. A person who is potentially having a heart attack does not fall into this category. Patients with heart attack symptoms require quick testing, diagnoses, and treatment to increase their chances of survival and continued quality of life.

If your heart attack was not diagnosed, treated incorrectly, or was not attended to promptly, you should speak to a Kingston heart attack malpractice lawyer. An experienced medical malpractice attorney could help you determine whether you have a valid claim and work to pursue monetary compensation for your damages.

Heart Attack Malpractice Liability

Most malpractice cases involve negligence on the part of the defendant. To recover damages on a plaintiff’s behalf, a heart attack malpractice lawyer in Kingston would first need to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. In this type of case, this duty could entail ordering the appropriate tests, giving the proper treatments, or using the available information to make the appropriate diagnosis.

How Does One Prove Liability?

The plaintiff’s lawyer must also prove that the defendant violated their duty and directly caused injury. For a jury to award compensation for damages, it must also be shown that the plaintiff’s injury caused pain and suffering, lost wages, increased medical expenses, loss of enjoyment of life, and other compensable damages.

The Comparative Fault Defense

Malpractice defendants and their legal teams often use comparative fault as a common defense to place some of the blame on the plaintiff. Accused individuals may claim that the plaintiff failed to seek medical care promptly for their concerning symptoms, did not follow the advice of the defendant, or was not forthright about their symptoms.

The jury may not consider comparative fault unless the defense introduces it. As such, a Kingston lawyer could review the details of a heart attack malpractice case and prepare to refute such claims.

How Does Comparative Fault Work?

While plaintiffs in some states may not recover any amount if a jury finds them at all liable for their injuries, New York Civil Practice Law & Rules §1411 dictates that New York plaintiffs are subject to pure comparative fault. If the court determines that an injured person bears some of the liability for their damages, both they and the defendant would be assigned a certain percentage of the total fault.

The court would then reduce the plaintiff’s compensation by the percentage they are assigned. For example, if the court determines that the injured person failed to follow the instructions of the defendant and is consequently 40 percent liable in a case, they would only be able to recover for 60 percent of their total damages.

Call a Kingston Heart Attack Malpractice Attorney for Help

Sustaining injuries and damages after a malpractice event is potentially devastating, as individuals who seek medical care rightfully anticipate that they would receive the treatment they need and deserve. When this expectation is breached and you are left with more pain and medical expenses, your hopes for a full recovery could be diminished.

Since New York does not have laws limiting the compensation for damages, your Kingston heart attack malpractice lawyer could fight for a fully comprehensive settlement or jury award in your case. Call today to get a case evaluation and discover what your injuries may be worth.