Make law, not war

If you suspect medical malpractice and want compensation, you must first prove that a mistake was actually made. That isn’t always easy. The difference between a complication and actual medical malpractice is far from always clear at first glance. At Beer advocaten, you can request a medical-legal feasibility assessment. This will give you more clarity on the feasibility of your medical liability case. How does the assessment work? One of our in-house medical advisors reviews the medical information. At the same time, your attorney will do the same from a legal perspective. The medical advisor explains to the attorney what happened during your treatment and what may not have been done correctly. Based on that advice and the legal analysis, you’ll receive a medical-legal feasibility assessment. What might the assessment entail? Sometimes the opinion is positive. In that case, you can choose to have a notice of liability drafted. Sometimes, it’s recommended to let the matter rest. There can be various reasons for this. A negative opinion is, of course, not what you hoped to hear, but it can also provide clarity and closure. A positive recommendation is no guarantee Once the notice of liability has been sent, the other party—usually an insurer—will have its own view of the case. The insurer will typically also consult a medical advisor. Our views may align or differ. If the latter is the case, we often enter the next phase to determine who is ‘right’: the expert report. An independent expert will then review all available (medical) information once more and write a report. Based on that report, there is usually greater clarity regarding the medical treatment and whether a medical error was made. What are the costs? You are initially responsible for paying the costs of the feasibility study yourself. The exact cost of this investigation and consultation depends on the complexity of the case and the size of the medical file. A cost estimate will be provided on a case-by-case basis. If liability is acknowledged, I will attempt to recover the costs from the insurer. Do you suspect a medical error? I’d be happy to discuss your options with you. Mr. Van de Velde is an attorney at Beer advocaten and represents exclusively victims and their surviving relatives.

A medical error can change your life forever, but how do you legally prove that it was actually an error? In this blog, I’ll discuss how you, as a patient or a patient’s next of kin, can prove that a healthcare provider made a medical error. The Medical Record Is Key In a medical malpractice case, the medical record serves as the foundation. It details what was done, decided, and assessed, and when. At least, that’s how it should be. In practice, patients often have a different recollection of the treatment than what’s in the records. Those recollections are also important, but they’re always weighed against what’s in the records. Furthermore, great weight is given to the statements made by the doctor or healthcare provider regarding these matters, including by the judge. What if the records are inaccurate? This is where it gets complicated. Medical records are often incomplete. Consultations that weren’t noted, symptoms you did report but that aren’t mentioned anywhere, appointments that weren’t documented. It can also happen that something is recorded that, in your opinion, simply doesn’t match what was actually said or done. That can feel very unfair. As a patient, you’re often at a 1-0 disadvantage. So how do you prove that you’re right? In that case, you’ll need to find another way to demonstrate that your version of events is accurate. This can be done, for example, through witness statements, messages you sent at the time, notes you kept yourself, log data, or other means. But to be honest, that’s usually not easy. If the medical record is flawed or incomplete, the burden of proof on you is quite heavy. That doesn’t mean the case is hopeless, but it’s important to keep this in mind. What I can do for you I help clients assess whether there is sufficient evidence for a legally viable case. This begins with a critical analysis of the medical record: what is in it, what is missing, and what does that mean? Sometimes it becomes clear early on that the evidence is strong or that the medical record aligns with what the client has stated. Sometimes it isn’t; in that case, I’ll advise you on the options still available to strengthen the evidence and whether it’s worth pursuing those options. Would you like to know if you have sufficient evidence for a legally viable medical malpractice case? If so, you can have us prepare a medical-legal feasibility study for you. You can read more about this in the following blog post: ‘Medical Malpractice Cases: Medical-Legal Feasibility Study.’ Do you suspect medical malpractice? I’d be happy to discuss your options with you. Mr. Van de Velde is an attorney at Beer advocaten and represents exclusively victims and their surviving relatives.  

Last March, a Los Angeles jury reached a historic verdict: it held Meta and Google liable for a woman's social media addiction. The judge awarded damages totaling six million dollars, including three million as compensation for the harm done and three million in punitive damages (intended to punish the defendant), because the jury found that both companies had acted with malicious intent. Meta was responsible for seventy percent of the damages, Google for thirty percent.[1] This is the first time a jury in the United States has awarded this type of damages to an individual user in a liability suit against a social media company. How does social media make us addicted? That social media addiction exists is now widely recognized. Platforms are built to keep users glued to the screen for as long as possible: infinite scroll, notifications, likes: all design incentives and algorithmic recommendations that constantly cater to human tendencies. Research by Bits of Freedom, published in March 2026 and funded by the Creative Industries Incentive Fund, mapped those mechanisms. The researchers identified nineteen specific design types that facilitate online addiction, including endless scroll, gamification, social pressure and temporary content.[2] Bits of Freedom concluded that these are not accidental side effects, but all conscious choices by these social media platforms. Everything is set up with only one goal: addiction. Social media addiction is not yet recognized as a mental illness in the Netherlands,[3] which does not make the phenomenon any less real. That social media can cause damage is at least already visible in the Netherlands. Newcom's National Social Media Research 2026, conducted among more than six thousand respondents, shows that 2.6 million Dutch people feel less happy because of social media. 5.5 million are trying to reduce their use. Newcom sees a clear connection: more intensive use goes hand in hand with lower physical and mental well-being and greater demand for care.[4] Is there any legal action to be taken against these platforms in the Netherlands? The American ruling has no direct effect in the Netherlands. But it illustrates something that will also become legally relevant here: that platforms can be held responsible for the damage their products cause. In Europe, there is a legal basis for liability. Since Feb. 17, 2024, the Digital Services Act (DSA) has been in effect. This regulation requires large platforms to identify and mitigate the risks of their own algorithms. The AI Act, many of whose rules take effect on Aug. 2, 2026, additionally imposes obligations on systems that generate or recommend content. Further regulation is also expected from the upcoming European Digital Fairness Act in this context. Bits of Freedom suggests that this regulation should explicitly regulate addictive design, with an emphasis on autonomy and consent as a starting point. Consider, for example, the possibility for users to turn off addictive features. The first results of this legislation are already visible. On Feb. 6, 2026, the European Commission made a preliminary determination that TikTok, with its addictive design, potentially violates the DSA. In doing so, the Commission mentioned exactly the mechanisms that have been in the public debate