Is permanence of an injury important in medical malpractice cases?

Can I sue for medical malpractice without permanent harm done? This is actually a very popular question and a simple answer is yes. However, the circumstances of each case will determine whether or not the outcome will be favorable to the plaintiff, and if so, whether the award will be worth the victim and the law firm's time, money and sanity. 

Medical malpractice occurs when a physician or facility's actions or lack of actions during treatment are outside the standard and accepted practice, causing illness, injury or death. Medical malpractice cases are typically difficult to pursue due to the expense involved in not only the actual court costs, but also the cost of collecting volumes of medical records and a medical expert. Some experts are weary to testify in court, thus they can be difficult to find and quite costly.

Of course, the type of illness or injury will be one of the deciding factors when a law firm decides to take on a case. The more serious the illness or injury, the more money will potentially be rewarded. Permanency is a factor, but the extent of the permanency will also apply. For instance, although someone may have received extensive burns on their body and is permanently scarred due to malpractice, if the burns are not on a visible part of the body they will not be worth as much. 

A lack of permanency does not disqualify an individual from seeking recoveries, it simply makes the case more difficult to prove and often juries will be less sympathetic. In short, seeking the advice of a qualified attorney is recommended to determine if the case is a good candidate for a lawsuit.