Archive for April, 2011

The Face Of Medical Malpractice May Be Founded In Prescribing Psychiatric Drugs

Over the years, the practice of medicine has radically changed. Now, psychiatric medicine is regarded as a legitimate field.

Many psychiatric patients today are able to get their prescriptions from their psychiatrist without dealing with their family doctor. While this is a boon for the patient, there are risks inherent in this practice. For example, prescribing psychiatric drugs without knowing the rest of the patient’s medical history is a case of medical malpractice looking for a place to happen.

Many of the psychiatric medications on the market today are noted mainly for their side effects alone, never mind how those side effects would manifest in the presence of other drugs. Keeping track of conflicting drugs is a major nightmare. If one drug is prescribed and causes a bad reaction, it will need to be replaced with something else. In other words, it’s a bit like trying to experiment with making a cocktail – keep adding things until something works without harming the patient.

In this potential minefield of psychiatric drugs versus other drugs a patient may be on, there is a very real question of how these drugs may affect a baby. Most, if not all of these types of drugs, have an impact on the tender and developing neural system of a fetus. If the drug affects the mother in an adverse manner, you may be sure it will affect the baby as well. The most common difficulties are nerve and brain damage. If a doctor does not warn his or her pregnant patient about the potential side effects and complications of psychiatric drugs, the baby may sustain serious damage and/or disabilities.

Consider the case of the 32-year-old psychiatric patient who was two months pregnant. She was prescribed pills for depression that caused her to suffer severe anxiety attacks, paranoia and several other disturbing symptoms. She returned to the doctor, who prescribed another drug that seemed to work well for her. Nine months later, she delivered a brain-damaged baby, a noted side effect of the drug prescribed. Since she had received no warnings about the drug she was on, she could not make an informed decision about whether to discontinue it or not.

Medical malpractice? Likely. Could the woman file a medical malpractice lawsuit? Yes. Would she win? Likely, but that would depend on the evidence presented in the case. If you have been in a similar situation, take your case and concerns to a competent Arkansas malpractice lawyer and find out how you may recover damages for your situation.

Michael G. Smith is anArkansas personal injury lawyer and Arkansas business dispute lawyer, practicing personal injury law and veteran’s benefits in Arkansas. Learn more by visiting Arkansaslawhelp.com

Tags: , , , , ,

Friday, April 15th, 2011 Medical Malpractice No Comments

Unresolved Business Disputes May Tank A Company

Running a business is not all it is cracked up to be some days. This is more so true when you need to deal with business disputes.

There are a number of ways to handle disputes in a workplace setting. What you choose to do will be based solely on your preferences, budget and how effective you think the methods may be in your particular workplace. For instance, the first thing you might want to try is direct negotiation. It does not cost that much to accomplish, but, it is not always the easiest way to get things done. People will be people and they are not always easy to deal with, so you need to be prepared before you try direct negotiation.

An example of getting ready to enter into direct negotiations would be that you, and hopefully the person you will be negotiating with, will be very clear on what is wanted, why it is wanted and how valuable the future relationship is with the other person.

Having done that, you then need to try and understand what the situation looks like from the other person’s point of view. That means you must take the time to really listen, understand, observe and ask questions to clarify. If all goes well, you can then draft an agreement that works for both parties.

If you are not comfortable with direct negotiation, and many people are not, you might want to try mediation. This simply means finding a way for the problem to be solved or resolved, not to figure out who is right or wrong.

The parties involved in mediation get to tell their respective stories to a neutral third party; one who does not have any authority to make decisions. They are there to facilitate a resolution to the situation – period. Of course, the solution needs to be okay with both parties. None of the material used during mediation is useable in court, a point you need to remember when considering your options for dealing with business disputes.

The next step after mediation is arbitration. This is when you take your business dispute to a neutral arbitrator who goes over all the evidence, hears both sides and then delivers a binding decision. Even if the parties to the arbitration do not like the decision, they have to accept it. This process is more time consuming and thus is usually more expensive, if you have budget concerns.

When all else fails, and in some cases, it does fail, you still have the legal option. This would involve letting a judge figure out who is right or wrong and making a decision. Most civil cases do not get that far, simply because they settle out of court to save money. While litigation is a definite option, it has two large drawbacks. It will generally ruin any working relationship between the parties and it can be costly.

What options would suit your business style? That would be something for you to determine, but generally speaking, the option that best suits your dilemma is one that suits your management style.

Michael G. Smith is anArkansas personal injury lawyer and Arkansas business dispute lawyer, practicing personal injury law and veteran’s benefits in Arkansas. Learn more by visiting Arkansaslawhelp.com

Tags: , , , , ,

Friday, April 1st, 2011 Business Disputes No Comments