Usually, yes, unless you can give an example circumstance where a non-involved party (other than the victim's survivors) might be made a party to the suit.
negligence suit
this would be negligence suit.
It would be a civil suit, usually in tort, for damages.
The statute of limitations for a negligence suit in Idaho is three years.
The defense of personal injury lawsuit should be proving that the defendant is not guilty of negligence. This can be done by showing that there was not a duty of care owed by the defendant to the prosecution or that the defendant was not truly injured or the injuries were not directly related to the defendant. Below is a link to an article stating the steps of proving negligence.
Dereliction of a duty directly causing damages. A defendant does not have to prove or disprove anything. The plaintiff carries the burden of having to prove all required elements of any action. If four elements are required and the plaintiff can only prove three, then the plaintiff loses. As with the people wishing to sue for finding hair in their french fries, if you lack damages or injuries, you lose. If you are injured, but the defendant is not the one who injured you, then you lose. You cannot win a negligence suit if you are missing one of the required elements of your case.
The time to bring the law suit in California is 2 years. That is from the time the negligence is discovered
The preferred defense in a negligence suit is to argue that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, did not breach that duty, or that the plaintiff's own actions contributed to their injury (contributory negligence or assumption of risk). Additionally, the defendant may argue that the plaintiff's injury was not directly caused by their actions.
You will need to speak to an attorney to see if a suit can be brought against the hospital. If the blood clot was caused from the doctor and negligence, you may have a case.
This is a guess; I'm not a lawyer but used to be a court reporter and come from a family of lawyers. Having said that: intent. There would be no need to prove that any harm was intended by the negligent person or entity.
Negligence and a professional duty of care are probably the two most important.
The legal term is "failure to use a reasonable amount of care when such failure results in injury of damage to another". An example would be driving under the influence (DWI). The nonlegal definition would be carelessness, such as leaving your spouse's golf clubs out in the rain. (Not that I know anyone who has ever done that).