Behind the scenes of a frivolous malpractice trial

Even when a physician wins a malpractice case, everyone loses

A wonderful, detailed behind-the-scenes look at a frivolous malpractice trial, and the disruption it causes in the physician’s life (via Common Good).

Comments

Curious JD
Too bad not a single tort reform proposal advanced by the President would change this case in the least. It’s also nice of them to throw in the cost to the county, which of course the county would be paying anyway because if there hadn’t have been that trial, there would have been another one.
It’s an interesting story though. Here’s another one.
Curious JD
It’s sad when you compare what doctors consider a “disruption” in their daily lives to the disruption some victims of malpractice have in their daily lives. But I guess you could argue since the guy in my link died, the disruption wasn’t that big at all, huh?
Orac
Sure it sounds bad, but let’s not forget that the article is an op-ed article, not a news story. It’s a human interest piece and is telling only one side of the case, the family’s. It’s also written in an intentionally emotionally charged style, with lots of quotes from the family, that leaves no doubt as to whose side the columnist is on. I’m not a neurosurgeon but I’ve done enough trauma surgery to have a fair knowledge of the fundamentals. Without hearing a lot more I wouldn’t dare make even an educated guess about whether there was indeed malpractice here, given that I have only one side of the story. Apparently the columnist has more knowledge than I in these matters. (Yes, that’s sarcasm.)
Of course, Curious JD can’t tell us, even if malpractice were found to have occurred in this case, how getting more money for the surviving relatives than $1 million would end the malpractice more effectively or punish the doctor more effectively than a State Board of Medical Examiners with actual teeth that could investigate the case and yank the doctor’s license if egregious malpractice did occur–other than providing a much nicer payout to the lawyers, of course.
Anonymous
Good story.
I don’t know how you can even argue against malpractice cap tort reform.
Almost every unbiased report on states with caps finds that the number of suits go down as well as medical malpractice costs.
Curious JD
I posted in the wrong thread, but I wonder, which unbiased reports are those?
Most “unbiased” reports also show that many states experiencing a “crisis” have had a pretty consistent number of claims as well, in that they have remained steady in real numbers or increased at the same rate as the population and number of physician increase.
The statistics regarding the medical malpractice “crisis” very clearly reflect that this is an insurance valuation issue which has little to do with the legal system. As does the history of the med mal insurance industry.
Anonymous
I am a member of the “Sorry Works Coalition” which promotes full disclosure and an apology following an adverse event. It’s a middle ground solution to the med-mal crisis. Please take a look.
http://www.sorryworks.net
–dag–
Anonymous
Oh, barf! I think the whole sorry works movement is a loathesome fraud. Medicine will work best–like virtually all human endeavors–when it is governed by contract and markets. If a doctor does not perform as promised, s/he should pay.
The “sorry works” movement takes advantage of people in emotional situation and attempts to resolve their pain through a bizarre ritual of absolution.
TEST: Would you advocate a “sorry works” program for plumbers who screw up a job? No, of course not. You’d want the plumber to fix it or pay. The rule should be no different for doctors.
Curious JD
I’d disagree with the latest Anonymous. You’d be surprised how many people that deal with physicians are as frustrated by their inaccesability or refusal to actually spend some time with their patients.
And while lawyers certainly suffer from low public opinion, there is a perception out there about physicians feeling they are too good to talk to the patient.
People want to respect their physician, and generally do. A little time spent with someone when they’ve made a mistake could go a long way. As could earlier offers to settle.
Anonymous
Argue away Curious JD:
The fact is malpractice caps have enjoyed very good success amongst the states and now it’s on the national agenda.
How many fewer civil injury trial attorneys will there be in ten years? Impossible to put a number on it but malpractice cases will be down and the breed you continually defend in these comments will be shrinking.
Anonymous
Anon is nuts! The “problem” has not been “solved” by caps. EVERY study I know (most notably the Institute for Medicine’e done in the late 1990s) shows a high rate of medical error. Caps simply ensure that patients bear a portion of these error’s costs.
Result: Doctors pay lower premia (MAYBE–although the evidence is out on that one); insurance companies make more money.
Doctors hate the med mal system because it questions their competence. Is society better off with caps? Should society care about doctor’s egos? The jury’s out.
Curious JD
Better do some fact checking, Anonymous #1. States that have had caps for years (Missouri, for example) are undergoing the same “crisis” that states without them are. North Carolina, a “crisis” state, actually has had a lower rate of malpractice inflation than some of its neighbors with draconian caps.
Oh, and guess what – fewer plaintiff’s lawyers doesn’t help you at all. Unless you’re in charge of AIG, that is.
The truth will set you free.
Anonymous
It really bugs me when the term “frivolous” is overused to describe any suit in which the plaintiff does not prevail.
A frivolous suit is one in which there is no genuine or consequential injury and/or no dispute about the facts, and/or no legitimate legal theory under which the plaintiff could recover.

Behind the scenes of a frivolous malpractice trial

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels

Subscribe

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels