The Willis Law Group’s Medical Malpractice clients know our attorneys are experienced in defending even the most complicated cases. Our lawyers have more than 15 years’ experience successfully defending hospitals, physicians, nurses, healthcare clinics, managed care organizations, dentists and other healthcare organizations. We have tried more than 70 medical malpractice cases and effectively settled many more. Our stellar trial and defense record lets our clients know they are in good hands with our defense team.
At The Willis Law Group, our litigation experience is unparalleled. We have tried more than 300 cases to jury verdicts and settled more than 10,000 cases. This experience has prepared our attorneys to aggressively defend against the most complex medical malpractice claims, involving all types of specialties and entities. We employ the "Precision Litigation™" approach to defense work rather than the “shotgun” approach employed by many of our competitors. We don’t believe in unnecessary depositions and creating an avalanche of paperwork to overwhelm our opponents. Knowledge and experience enable us to quickly identify and target the essential aspects of a case for effective and economical resolution in the matters entrusted to us by our clients.
Our approach provides an evaluation of the predicted exposure, individualized defense strategies, and, when appropriate, pretrial dispute resolution analysis. Our experience includes representing hospitals, physicians, nurses, pharmacists, nursing homes, national and regional carriers and self-insured entities in medical malpractice and negligence matters.
With offices in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Oklahoma City and New Orleans, we are well positioned to serve our clients' medical defense needs in the south central United States. Our rates are extremely competitive, making us the right choice for clients seeking medical defense representation in our service areas.
Supreme Court Case
Garland Community Hospital v Rose, 156 SW3d 541, 546 (Tex 2004). Our attorney won a summary judgment on an issue that ultimately went to the supreme court. Our attorneys were able to convince the Court that a negligent credentialing case is a health care liability claim which requires an expert report be produced by the Plaintiff. The reasoning behind these rulings stems from the 2004 case of Garland Community Hospital v. Rose in which the Texas Supreme Court held that negligent credentialing was a health care liability claim for two reasons: (1) physician credentialing is inseparable from the health care rendered to patients since hospitals provide physicians a place to treat patients, and (2) the evaluation of physician applications for staff privileges requires the introduction of expert testimony since that is a matter outside a juror's ordinary experience .
Because claims against the employers of physicians and other staff alleged to have physically and/or sexually assaulted patients are essentially that they violated standards of care with respect to the hiring, instruction, retention, supervision, and training of such individuals, they are health care liability claims. Along similar lines, claims by patients against health care providers for failure to protect them from the intentional acts of other patients (even if styled as general negligence and/or premises liability claims) are health care liability claims.
Physician Could Not Diagnose
Facts: A general practitioner saw a pregnant patient complaining of numbness in her lower legs and lower back. The GP prescribed pain pills and requested a follow-up visit soon after. The GP then prescribed lower-dosage pain medicine and recommended physical therapy with someone who specialized in working with pregnant women. Instead, the patient went to a chiropractor who did a minor adjustment. Soon after the patient went to the Emergency room where she was immediately admitted with an impinged nerve and and diagnosed with full-blown Equina Syndrome.
Our Approach: We were able to successfully demonstrate that the patient’s condition worsened after being seen and that it would not have been possible for our GP client to diagnose this condition at the time the patient was seen.
Results: No verdict against our client. Potential damages were $60,000 to repair the impingement, over$1 million plus lost wages.
Facts: Plaintiff contended that she had received sub-standard treatment while a patient at the hospital, resulting in amputation of her leg. Because of the injuries, the Plaintiff asked the jury for more than $1 million in damages.
Our approach: All of the doctors who testified in deposition and at the trial were of the opinion that the care rendered at the hospital was proper and did not cause any damage to the patient. During the trial, we asked plaintiff experts if he had any criticisms of the nurses. The plaintiff’s expert could not articulate any opinion that the nurses acted below the standard of care
Result: The judge granted the hospital a directed verdict and the hospital was released from the trial.