How many Pennsylvania lawsuits against physicians have merit?

Trial lawyers had filed 5,600 lawsuits against Pennsylvania physicians between May of 2002 and November, 2004

“Of those lawsuits, the Pennsylvania Medical Board had reviewed 3,600 cases, and found only four (4) that showed merit.”

Comments

Anonymous
It seems to me the cause and effect argument over whether malpractice case awards are causing the increase in insurance costs is a moot argument.
The fact is that, as far as my search can tell, there is a virtually undisputed consensus that lawyers are filing frivolous claims. Not only that, there seems to be a consensus that uninformed judges and juries are actually finding for plantiffs in a good precentage of frivolous cases where the standard of care, as reviewed by other doctors, was in acceptable ranges and there was no neglegence. The amazing thing is, there doesn’t seem to be much dispute about this.
So even if its true that the cost of these lawsuits cannot be the underlying cause of malpractice insurance rate increases, it doesn’t matter. By just principal, the current judicial setup concerning malpractice claims should be changed so that the system gets the cases right.
The answer may be professional review of cases. It is much more difficult for a lay person, say a lawyer or a judge or a jury member, to understand a medical situation than it is for lay person, say a physician, to understand a judicial situation. What I mean is it is easier for a physician to sit in on some sort of judicial review of a malpractice case and understand the law and his responsibilities under it than it is for John B. Smith to sit in a jury and review a medical procedure for negligence and understand it. Or, for that matter, for a lawyer to review a medical malpractice case and determine if it has merit.
You know, there are a growing number of M.D./J.D. programs…
Curious JD
Anonymous, if by “virtually undisputed concensus” you are referring only to the medical community, you are correct. Is it surprising to you that payouts go up when the cost of medical malpractice payouts goes up every year? The cost of nearly everything goes up on a yearly basis. Do you think the increase in physicians in PA is resulting in less instances of negligence?
And how exactly is it that a “good percentage” of juries are making a mistake when they only find for the plaintiff 25% of the time?
And do you think that the failure of PA’s largest insurer might have had anything to do with the increase in insurance costs? And another PA insurer’s execs were found to have basically looted the company before it went under? How about medical inflation?
I’d say your “search” was limited at best – probably to articles like the linked one. Would you give credence if a physician paid by ATLA came out and said that 90% of the cases filed were correct? Then why would you give a lobbying organization for the other side any more credence?
Kevin
“Would you give credence if a physician paid by ATLA came out and said that 90% of the cases filed were correct?”
Actually, I would. Find me that physician, JD.
Curious JD
Kevin, if PA is like many states and requires an affidavit from a physician accompanying the complaint, I could show you 5600.
But I think we both know that the assertion that only 4 out of 5600 “had merit” is a silly one, even if we knew their definition of “merit.” Also, since there were 7000 complaints (not claims) to the Board in 2003, how exactly would they have had the time to respond to those and still review all of the medical records in 3600 cases? Let’s be serious.
Considering the PA Board of Medicine’s track record in identifying problems, as illustrated in this article, I’m not surprised they don’t recognize a legitimate malpractice case:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/7270771.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
GG
This bickering about the exact number of frivilous claims is a red herring. We all know that whatever the percentage, the current system is only getting worse. If the increase in claims is the result of more malpractice, then it is ridiculous to argue that malpractice suits improve medical care since the number of suits is going up. Whatever the reason, more dollars are being diverted to legal costs instead of patient care. We know that doctors are closing practices earlier and that students are choosing risk-averse residencies. Private hospitals and practices are avoiding non-paying patients, moving more of the burden onto inefficient public hospitals. The current situation is spiraling out of control, and the end is inadequate care for the indigent population and inconvenience for all. Socialized medicine isn’t fairing much better these days in Canada and Europe. It’s cheaper, but wait times are extraordinary.
I think the first thing we should do is prohibit punitive damage claims in lawsuits against not-for-profit hospitals and clinics. Those institutions should be responsible for damages and nothing more. Then they can afford to treat the population again. And why should a patient receive a payout for care that is provided pro bono?
Anonymous
Get yr facts straight. As the recent study by several UT academics show, the rate of malpractice claims is NOT going up, but has remained relatively constant.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3112163
Why do you constantly repeat this non-truths?
As for yr “non-profit” exemption, ha, ha. “Hospitals” may be non-profit, but the doctors who run then sure are not. Why should a doctor who kills someone because of his/her negligence still get to ride around in his lexus.
GG
Anonymous,
The article you cited contains plenty of criticism of the actual study; I’m not sure that is the best source to defend your point. Studies by the Department of Health and Human Services as well as the US General Accounting Office have documented an overall rise in both the median awards and a dramatic rise in large jury awards, so I don’t think I’m on unsteady ground here. Also, I do not “constantly repeat this non-truths” as you say, because I rarely post at all.
The argument for exempting non-profit institutions from punitive damages does not let a doctor kill a patient and keep driving a Lexus as you claim. Physicians at public hospitals and clinics earn far less than their colleagues in the private sector. As the risk-to-reward ratio has increased at public institutions, more physicians are leaving public hospitals and moving to private clinics that are not required to see indigent patients. The result is worsening care for the poor and higher costs for all. So the doctor at the public hospital is more likely to kill the patient and less likely to drive a Lexus, which doesn’t exactly solve the problem of patient care, which was the actual point of my original post.
Curious JD
GG, the GAO and the CBO studies have debunked some of the HHS findings, as well as much of the AMA’s claims. Suffice to say that the evidence is, well, differing. There’s a good Medical Economics article that discusses the issue in detail and ought to be required reading for both sides. You can find it here:
http://www.memag.com/memag/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=141338
The argument against eliminating punitive damages for non-profits lies less with Lexus’ than a deterrent factor. Punitive damages are designed to deter certain conduct. Rarely are they a factor in the typical med mal case against an individual physician because one instance of negligence, unless it’s gross (doctor drunk and operating) then there is no reason to punish a single mistake.
Where punitives come in is when a hospital, for example, chooses to be short-staffed to save a few dollars and as a result the care suffers below an unacceptable point. Not a very good example, but I think you get my point. In reality, though, punitive damages are rarely an issue in this context.
gg
JD,
Good article, and I agree with the points. I know the punitive damages are a minor amount of actual jury decisions right now, but the threat of uncapped rewards is one of the reasons for actuaries to calculate higher risks and hence higher premiums, even if it doesn’t occur. I understand the purpose of punitive damages, I just wonder if that motivation is as effective for a public hospital. Our local public hospital loses over $100 million each year, which is picked up by the city. My impression is the best way to encourage the board of a public hospital to improve care is to have a city council that fires people when the hospital provides bad service. I think cost and the threat of punitive damages is much more effective against for-profit hospitals who expect to make money, not lose it.
Another problem is that public hospitals are where most of our teaching takes place. Unfortunately, students and residents are going to make mistakes, and they need to perform procedures to learn them well. It is better that they make those errors under the eyes of attendings who can fix the mistakes effectively, but they need an environment where a certain level of error is acceptable. According to the faculty I have spoken with, it has become much more difficult in recent years for students and residents to receive training in the private arena because nobody wants to pay the malpractice premiums to cover untrained personnel. We have to train these people somewhere, and the private sector is not going to do it.
Curious JD
Insurers shouldn’t be allowed to adjust based on their very worst day every time. That’s a scare tactic and they know it.
With car insurance, every one of us could potentially be in a wreck that could leave someone a quadraplegic with damages of $1 million plus. It’s probably far more likely than a large punitive damages verdict against a hospital. Do we require them to have $1 million in reserves on every car?
That being said, some states have claims limits on teaching hospitals run through their university systems. I know mine does.

How many Pennsylvania lawsuits against physicians have merit?

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels

Subscribe

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels