回複：真的嗎?另外一個人是這麽說的...你覺的他說的有道理嗎?

First, let me say that any of us comes here for legal advise is at his/her own risk on the information received because none of us is qualified lawyer, at least not in your jurisdiction anyway. I don't agree that nobody can share their experiences/opionions here because "it is unwise". Anybody should know that often lawyers will protect their interests by charging a upfront fee, even for consulting, normally in the range from $100 to a few hundred dollars, per hour. Without some basic understanding what you will be looking for, going to a lawyer for advise will be like throwing money away.

Back to you case. First you need an expert opinion to find out what it is to cause the pain. If it turns out tht it would not normally happen without negligence, then you have a prima facie case. I would go with Res Ispa, as I posted before, that you can not prove what the doctor did wrong in the c-section. Second, you need to check the paper you signed before the c-section. Does it mention something like this? There is something called "informed consent" in malpractice case. The doctor has to tell you the risk associated, though the chance of the risk is only 1%. If he did that, then there is no negligence in his part. If not, he is negligent, unless he reasonably believed that mentioning the risk would detrimentally unset you. For example, if a surgery involves a 1% risk of side effect that the patient could die. The doctor mentioned that before the patient signs the paper work. When the patient was really the out of luck type and actually died from the surgery, his estate cannot sue the doctor for negligence. In another words, he could be well outside the scope of consent.

In my opinion you have a strong case here if you can prove that the thing in the scar was probably due to negligence. If that is the case then the recovery is rather significant. In the famous Hawkins hands case the jury rewarded the plaintiff projected loss of earning throughout his life expectancy. The surgeon performed a skin grafting on the plaintiff's hand and resulted in permanent damage. The jury categoried the plaintiff as disable person and based on experts' opinions that a disable person would make $10000 less than a normal person each year during their life time, muliplied by his projected life time of 67.5 years, to calculate the damage.