Would a wife refusing an autopsy of her husband hinder her chance of winning a medical malpractice suit?

Answer 1

That quite depends on the cause of death. I have consulted on cases where an autopsy would not show anything that was not known.

However, if she is not buried or cremated yet, it would be best when the case is filed, shows that you are ready to hear the truth and want everything that is truthful to be available. If the action that constituted the malpractice was documented afterward, you can probably proceed with the suit. Remember that malpractice suits can be filed even when a patient lives through the incident, but it does require good documentation in the medical records.

If you would add some details, I will recheck and see if I can be of more assistance.

Answer 2

Although I can see reasoning behind why someone would refuse the autopsy, it will be hard to prove a case without evidence. Unfortunately, it does not matter how religious or sentimental the reason for refusal is, without the evidence to prove exactly how he died, it will be very difficult to prove the case in court.

There may be other pieces of evidence, but these may point to the wife herself, or to someone else rather than the medical personnel that may have committed malpractice.

All of this depends on the specifics of the case, and an experienced attorney should be consulted for a concrete answer.

Answer 3

You bet! Without an autopsy you have a very limited means of gaining proof of malpractice. A good attorney can make it look like you knew there was no malpractice and you declined the autopsy to prevent evidence of that being shown.

Answer 4

An autopsy would be nessecary to prove medical wrong doing, especially if the death is directly related to the the malpractice suit. I would image that her refusal to do this would more than hinder her chance.

Answer 5

Yeah. They only way someone can tell what killed a person is by an autopsy, unless it was because of old age. That is why all murdered people, or suspected murdered people, have an autopsy performed on them, even if they know there is a gun shot wound through the skull just cause that could be a cover up for something even more tragic.

Answer 6

Yes.

Why would she want to hinder the investigation that could lead to more evidence to prove her case?

And depending on where she lives, some states require autopsies of all suspicious deaths. That means she could not refuse.

Also, if the respondent in this case has anything to do with it, they will file motions to require an autopsy.

Answer 7

in order for a suit to be filed an autopsy would be required as part of the action to proceed. i do not know many defense attornies who would grant a waiver of autopsy to the plaintiff.
only shot you have is if religious beliefs prevent an autopsy being done.

Answer 8

In most cases, I would say yes. Accusation isn't usually enough. There needs to be some quantifiable evidence. However, seek an attorney to be sure.

Answer 9

I would say most definitely- how else is the cause of death going to be proved to be malpractice.

Answer 10

I would imagine so. The autopsy would be her proof of medical negligence.