Just because a medical malpractice case appears to be a slam dunk doesn't mean that it is. There are nuances in the laws of every state, New Jerseys and others, that can have a stifling effect. It's another reason why someone who thinks they might have a claim should consult with an attorney experienced in medical malpractice law.

We're prompted to write about this after reading about how the letter of the law in another state that is intended to limit frivolous lawsuits appears to have been misinterpreted by the courts to such an extent that it has derailed legitimate claims before they get heard. One case involved pregnancy related injury specifically.

At issue is a 2005 change in Connecticut law that requires plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases to supply medical expert testimony that alleged malpractice occurred. The law says the expert has to have credential "similar" to the accused professional. The problem is that state courts have insisted the credentials be identical.

That was a threshold one woman couldn't meet. Everything related to her case seemed clear. Because of unique issues that caused a previous miscarriage, she had arranged with her regular doctors to have care turned over to specialists if complications occurred in subsequent pregnancies.

She did get pregnant, but when problems developed her doctors refused to refer her to the specialists. She became ill. The child nearly died at birth. He did die 51 days later. When she tried to sue, the judge dismissed the case because her expert's credentials weren't an exact match to the defendants'.

In New Jersey, expert testimony by an appropriately licensed professional is necessary to press some complex cases. But it's not needed if the allegations follow out of common medical knowledge.

Connecticut lawmakers from both parties who approved the 2005 change say the courts have flouted their intent. Efforts were made during the last legislative session to clarify the language of the law, but they died under pressure from the medical community.

Proponents of the tight interpretation say it has reduced frivolous suits. Opponents say the law may have reduced the number of suits, but that some valid claims that should have been heard have been scuttled. They say the only beneficiaries have been bad doctors and hospitals who haven't been held accountable for their actions.

Source: Claims Journal, "Connecticut Law Nixing Legitimate Malpractice Lawsuits," Dave Collins, Jan. 10, 2012