Do I have any legal recourse regarding possible malpractice?

UPDATED: Sep 30, 2022

Advertiser Disclosure

It’s all about you. We want to help you make the right legal decisions.

We strive to help you make confident insurance and legal decisions. Finding trusted and reliable insurance quotes and legal advice should be easy. This doesn’t influence our content. Our opinions are our own.

UPDATED: Sep 30, 2022Fact Checked

Get Legal Help Today

Compare Quotes From Top Companies and Save

secured lock Secured with SHA-256 Encryption

Do I have any legal recourse regarding possible malpractice?

About 4 years ago, I had my first hip replaced. I had the anterior approach completed because the recovery time is much shorter. My doctor found numerous calcium deposits in my pelvis that needed to be removed prior to my

right hip prosthetic being installed. I did not have a more recent MRI done a few days prior. I believe if he had done his due diligence instead of relying on an MRI that another doctor from a different practice. The surgery typically last 1 hour but on this day I was under for over 4 hours. I had to have a machine to recycle and transfuse 4 liters of type c blood in to me. My wife was never told of this situation. I was in surgery and recovery for a total of 13 hours. My situation has gotten much worse and I can barely work. I’m on the verge of losing my home.

Asked on June 8, 2017 under Malpractice Law, Virginia


SJZ, Member, New York Bar / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney

Answered 5 years ago | Contributor

There are two issues here. The more serious one is time: there is something called a "statute of limitations," or SOL, and it is how long you have to start a lawsuit. If you let the SOL expire, you can not sue, not matter how strong your case. In your state, for medical malpractice, the SOL is only 2 years; while there are some doctrines that can "toll" or delay/extend the SOL if you did not know and *could not* have known of the problem in a timely manner, you write that there were problems at the surgery, which reasonably could have put you on notice to be examined by another doctor and see if the surgury was done correctly or if there were complications. Based on what you write, it may well be too late, 4 years later, to sue.
Second, the issue is NOT whether or not the doctor could have done things differently; the issue is whether he *should* have. In that regard, the failure to do a new MRI himself shortly before surgery could be malpractice, IF a reasonable doctor, given then currently accepted standards of care for this procedure, would have done one. But if it would have been considered normal or reasonable for the surgeon to rely on the prior MRI, he may have done nothing wrong. You need some medical reason, grounded in the standards for acceptable care, to believe the doctor did something wrong.

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 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 lock Secured with SHA-256 Encryption