Kevin, M.D. - Medical Weblog

If tort reform "worked", then how does one explain the following things which occurred before Texas gutted the rights of injured patients?

1. Noneconomic (pain and suffering) damage payouts had remained flat between 1987 and 2001 and in fact dropped below 1988 levels in 2000, while economic damages had increased with the cost of medical inflation, going from $88 million in 1988 to $290 million in 2000.

2. Insurers' yield on invested assets dropped from nearly 2 billion in 1998 to 1.15 billion in 2000. Not surprisingly, they are on the way back up.

3. Despite the pre-tort reform claims of a mass doctor exodus circulated by the AMA, the truth was that the number of physicians had increased 18% between '97 and 2000.

Clearly, Texas was in dire need of tort reform. Thank goodness someone is helping insurers remain profitable. Although I wouldn't advise getting hurt by a physician there these days. Particularly if you don't have a job.
 

Everyone knows incuding a New York Times Editorial that the overwhelming majority of malpractice claims are made against docs who have done nothing wrong. Our present malpractice system is a farce and does almost nothing to reduce medical errors or improve patient care. Trial lawyers routinely go after the wrong physicians. What is happening in Texas is good. As trial lawyers are removed from the equation, reporting of errors will increase and review boards will freely and comfortably procede to weed out incompetent docs. Then care will improve. Lawyers are an unnecessary burden on the system.
 

You're right, we are unnecessary. Maybe one day people will take responsibility for their mistakes and willingly pay for the harm they have caused.

Until then, though, we'll all have to remain mere mortals.
 

In the end, it only matters if you have money or if your life was considered important enough.
John Ritter's wife gets to bring suit. Our family was turned down.
He died of acute aortic dissection. She died of acute aortic dissecttion.
As far as I can tell he had no family history of aortic disease nor was he previously diagnosed with a dilated aortic
Our mother died of a ruptured aorta at about the same age as my sister when she died. My sister had already been diagnosed with a dilated aorta (4.5 which is considered to be an aneurysm). She carried a card stating she had this. Yet, the only thing done for her in 12 hours was an EKG and an enema. No CT scan, no rush to surgery, no cardilogist called.

Five months after her death, my brother-in-law went to a lawyer. Not being experts in the legal profession, we trusted them. When time was going on I asked about it. My b-i-l called. No decision. 15 months went by. I am an educated woman with common sense. My common sense told me that surely they were taking the case. Why else would they take so long. But I was wrong. After 15 months, they said "No." We could not file because they (ER) followed standard procedure. Now we cannot find another lawyer because the statute of limitations will run out in April and the lawyers say there is not enough time.

All I know is that my sister is dead, and no one cares. We cannot even file and yet the Ritter family can. John was given tests (albeit too late) that showed the dissection and was rushed to surgery, while my sister lay there 12 hours and nothing was done but an EKG and an enema. Then she died.

Can someone tell me why this can happen? I believe our family was cheated by both the medical and the legal profession.
 

How old was your sister when she died? My daughter was 33, and died after 3hours in the er at Hershey Med Center. Her chest pain, difficulty breathing and severe headache was ignored, she had been in the er before with gall bladder problems. She died immediately after in injection of demerol. No doctor saw her until after she had died. Please accept my condolences,
this kind of death is so sudden, and ignorance on the part of er personnel is salt in the wound.