What must the plaintiff prove to prevail in a claim of medical malpractice? Clearly define this legal doctrine, including the element of this cause of action. How does medical malpractice differ from a standard negligence claim?

What defenses, if any, exist for a claim of medical malpractice?

Evaluate arguments for and against tort reform in the area of medical malpractice. You are encouraged to illustrate your arguments by using real case examples, either researched or from the material provided.

Include new thoughts or ideas based on the module information. This is your reflection/insight that logically would flow from each information point presented.

As a helpful explanation, in the area of torts we see many causes of action that are comprised of "elements." For instance, if we discuss a situation involving negligence, we would define negligence stating, "Negligence occurs when a person's conduct falls below the standard of care, resulting in a breach of duty which is the direct and proximate cause of injury to another person or thing. The elements of negligence are 1) duty; 2) breach; 3) causation; and 4) damages." Then, each element would be analyzed, determining whether each one was met. It is imperative that each element of a tort claim is met for the plaintiff to prevail in a suit.

Your paper should be 2-3 pages in length, not including the title or reference page. Review the grading rubric, which can be accessed from the Course Information page, and make sure to follow the CSU-Global Guide to Writing and APA Requirements.