Can I sue a doctor’s office for my 5 yr old (4 at the time) for getting cellulites from a shot they gave him and will I have a case?

You selected "Nebraska" as the State when you asked your Question. everything seems to involve Californian not Nebraska. I am not licensed to practice law in California and, as such, I cannot provide an answer to your Question. If there is a Nebraska connection then re-ask your question but make sure to include in the information how Nebraska is involved. Otherwise, you should re-ask your Question and select "California" as the State rather than "Nebraska." DISCLAIMER: This response should be considered general in nature, for information purposes only and should be used only as a starting point for addressing legal questions and issues. It is based on the limited information provided and, in some instances, makes certain assumptions. It is intended only for cases involving Nebraska and Nebraska law and is not applicable to any other state or jurisdiction. The author does not warrant the accuracy or validity of the information contained within this response, and hereby disclaims any liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions. In addition, this response is not a substitute for professional legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship, nor should it be considered a solicitation for additional legal advice or legal representation. If you ignore this warning and convey confidential information in a private message or comment, there is no duty to keep that information confidential or forego representation adverse to your interests. You should seek the advice of a licensed attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction to fully discuss your case. You should be aware that there are Statute of Limitations (the deadline imposed by law within which you may bring a lawsuit) as well as other requirements and/or limitations that limit the time you have to file any potential claims you may have. This response may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions under any and all applicable laws and ethical rules. The listing of any area of practice that the author practices in does not indicate any certification or expertise therein, nor does it represent that the quality of legal services to be performed would be greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. It is merely an indication by the author of areas of law in which he practices. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. Readers are urged to make their own independent investigation and evaluation of any lawyer being considered.

I am in Michigan. We have different laws. Typically though, you must prove that the doctors did something wrong (or failed to do something right) which constitutes a "deviation from the standard of practice in the same or similar communities." Then, you must prove that what was done (or not done) caused the injury. It cannot be a coincidence, it must be actually caused by the shot.

In order to proceed with a medical malpractice case, you would have to show the care he received was below the acceptable standard of care. A bad result does not automatically mean poor care. To show the standard of care you would have to hire an expert. An attorney who specializes in medical malpractice would be able to assist you in this matter.

The Court will make you're the legal representative of your child for purposes of pursuing a claim on your child's behalf.

Probably not. Your son has recovered so be grateful his damages don't justify a long intrusive battle into your privacy. Praise the Lord.

It is not likely that your child has a case. To successfully sue for malpractice, you need three things: 1. Evidence that the doctor/nurse deviated from acceptable standards of due care, either by act or omission. This is also referred to as negligence. A bad outcome, in of itself, is not evidence of negligence. You need a doctor to testify that the doctor/nurse was negligent. 2. Evidence that the negligence cause some harm. 3. Significant damages. If the negligence caused minor damages, it would not be economically feasible to bring a ,malpractice case, because the cost in expert witness fees would exceed your damages. I know some malpractice attorneys who require at least $500,000 in medical bills or lost wages caused by the negligence before they will consider the case. You say your child would not have suffered had the doctor's office done the job right, but you do not say what they did wrong. Remember, a bad outcome in of itself is not evidence of negligence. You need a medical doctor to say what the doctor's office did wrong. For example, all medicines have side effects, and this may be a side effect that could happen without negligence (I'm not saying it is, just that a doctor has to answer these questions). The reason I say you probably do not have case is that you say your child is now alright. Since there is no permanent harm, there is probably not enough damages to justify the expense of a malpractice suit, even if you do have a medical opinion that problem was a result of medical negligence.

Your should consult with a local plaintiff's medical malpractice lawyer for specific legal advice and assistance regarding your son's medical treatment.

This purports to be a North Carolina matter but you say it happened in California. You may need to consult with a Cal atty. However, you need to know that there may be side effects to any inoculation or any medical procedure. And the fact that your son had an adverse reaction does not necessarily mean the doctor did anything wrong. I think you have jumped to a conclusion. If you think you have a case you must get a medical opinion that the adverse reaction was caused by the negligence of the doctor. In short you must have a doctor to back up your claim.

In order to prove a medical malpractice case, a claimant must prove a failure to conform to accepted practice, resulting in an injury. You would have to engage another doctor to review the records and provide that expert opinion. These cases are difficult and expensive to prove and they do not settle out of court. Absent catastrophic injuries, it does not make financial sense to go forward even if malpractice was committed.

I have no idea what California law says, but typically no state will allow you to receive compensation without, at the very least, the testimony from a "similar health care provider" stating that the doctor deviated from the standard of care.