Attorneys are furiously filing medical malpractice lawsuits in Cook County to beat damage caps

With caps coming, Illinois’ lawyers are racing to chase ambulances
“Down the stretch they come.

Attorneys are furiously filing medical malpractice lawsuits in Cook County in a race to beat Gov. Blagojevich’s signature on a bill that caps awards in such cases.

Since legislative leaders announced a deal on caps last Wednesday, 58 medical malpractice lawsuits have been filed in Cook County — three to four times the number normally filed . . .

. . . ‘We expected it, we predicted it, we warned about it, and now it’s happening,’ said Craig Backs, president of the Illinois State Medical Society. ‘None of this is the least bit surprising, but clearly this is a good news/bad news situation. The good news is, it reinforces what we’ve been saying all along. The bad news is, it reinforces what we’ve been saying all along.’”

Comments

Anonymous
What has he been saying all along -Too many doctors committing malpractice casuing injuring or death to their patients?
Anonymous
How amazing – lawyers trying to do what is in the best interests of their clients and get cases filed before arbitrary limits are placed on them.
That’s so horrible. I’m sure Kevin would not want that if it were him that was unlucky enough to be a victim of medical malpractice. He’d want his lawyer to wait as long as possible.
Anonymous
Kevin, you left out the best quote:
“With attorneys filing so many last-minute medical malpractice cases, “we can’t answer to either our physicians or the public as to when they can expect to see a decrease or stabilization in their rates and, in fact, they may see an increase because [new] cases require the expenditure of more money,” Backs said.”
That’s awesome. We’ve got tort reform – now we have to raise your rates!!
You guys sure picked a good partner in the insurance industry.
Anonymous
Better than you as a partner.
I would expect uncertainty for a few years before seeing any trend on the rates. They have to deal with a spike in cases, and have to wait until the law is proved constitutional, lest they drop rates and find they are hit with suits harder than ever.
Of course you knew that.
I couldn’t believe Illinois, of all places, passes tort reform. There must have been a lawyer who finally suffered for lack of a doctor in southern Illinois.
Anonymous
No one appreciates a lawyer as their partner until they are the victim. But for someone who is invincible, like yourself, that will probably never be an issue. I assume you’re children are invincible as well.
Let me know when you get done waiting. I think they’re still waiting in Missouri, after the first round of “reform” failed. After you’ve squeezed all you can out of the victims, who will you turn to next?
Anonymous
It must be all Lawyers replying to this thread. It can’t possibly be patients who have been injured in some way by their Drs. and waitting for a mass tort settlement. If so, they would most definitely be be more angry at their Lawyers than what any of these people seem to be. Lawyers don’t give 2 cents about their clients receiving compensation over a wrong done to them, they care about robbing the medical profession. I can hardly believe the clients who are so happy to become part of a medical malpractice lawsuit that will eventually settle for probably $50,ooo per claim. which means if your attormey has 5,000 clients and he takes 30% of each claim, guess who gets rich, for this great injustice that you have suffered? Surely not you! Wake up America, your Lawyer don’t give a damn about you.
Anonymous
I went to the Illinois State Medical Society to look at the particulars of the recent tort reform package, and ran into this:
http://www.isms.org/news/news_release/nr011705.pdf
Anonymous
>>I think they’re still waiting in Missouri, after the first round of “reform” failed.
First time I’ve agreed with your use of scare quotes. The original reform was inadequate. Noneconomic damages was capped EXCEPT for a number of cases, which basically rendered it useless. The “reform” the state medical association wanted was not delivered, the “reform” they got was inadequate, the Missouri medical association said it at the time.
The REFORM Missouri docs wanted, and apparently got this time, was a hard cap. Looks like they also got a limit on venue shopping, joint/several liability, collateral source, among other changes.
http://msma.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/msmaorg/htmlos.cgi/003169.5.2288874789915668050
Here are just some of the highlights:
# Limits venue in tort actions to the county where the plaintiff was first injured
# Caps non-economic damages at $350,000, with no annual inflator
# Fixes the Scott decision which allowed multiple non-economic damage caps
# Allows joint and several liability only if a defendant is 51% or greater at fault
# Requires a court to dismiss any case for which the plaintiff cannot produce an affidavit of merit. The expert that claims the case has merit must be identified and must practice the same profession and substantially the same specialty as the defendant
# Makes benevolent gestures inadmissible in court
# Limits punitive damages to the greater of $500,000 or five times the amount of the judgment
# Modifies the collateral source rule to allow the discovery of amounts actually paid (in contrast to amounts billed) for a plaintiff’s medical treatment
# Creates civil immunity for physicians that volunteer services at free health clinics
Anonymous
Yet in Missouri, claims and payouts declined after the last time they had “reform” and still premiums skyrocketed and they lost insurers.
By the way, is there any reason a cap shouldn’t be indexed for inflation?
So what’s going to be your excuse next time?
Anonymous
If the enviornment was so profitable, why did the insurers leave?
Anonymous
Because insurance is cyclical, and in a rush to write business during a booming market, they underpriced their product, then when the cycle changed, they were unprepared. Plus, some insurers were simply mismanaged, and failed to adequately assess their risk.
Insurance is a risk business, and at times the risk will bite you. As I’ve said, if you only examined losses during a hurricane year in Florida, you’d wonder why they write home insurance. Some seem to think there is some constitutional right that an insurer must always be profitable every year regardless.
For a very balanced and informative look at the situation, try this article from Medical Economics:
http://www.memag.com/memag/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=
Here are some statements from insurers and industry magazines which are also illuminating. Note that this is not from ATLA, but from the insurance industry. But many docs don’t believe this stuff, even when it comes from the horse’s mouth:
“As the economy enjoyed a magic carpet ride in the 1990s, insurers kept rates artificially low because they earned
more money investing than by writing policies.” “The insurance companies wouldn’t be in this position if they hadn’t been so hungry for investment profits and had priced their product appropriately.”
Carol Brierly Golin, editor of Medical Liability Monitor, an industry newsletter in Chicago – Rising Malpractice Premiums Hit Florida Doctors Hardest, Medical Liability Monitor, 12/19/01.
“Insurers never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings . . .” March 13, 2002 press release by the American Insurance Association (AIA).
“The conclusion of the study is that the noneconmic cap . . .[and other tort ‘reforms’] will produce little or no savings to the tort system as it pertains to medical malpractice.” – Internal documents citing a study written by Florida insurers regarding that state’s omnibus tort “reform” law of 1986 – Medical Professional Liability, State of Florida, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company.
“Non-economic damages are a small percentage of total losses paid. Capping non-economic damages will show loss savings of 1.0%.” GE Medical Protective, the nation’s largest insurer, justifying a 19% rate increase after Texas enacted tort reform.
“I don’t like to hear insurance-company executives say it’s the tort system – it’s self inflicted.’” Donald J. Zuk, Chief Executive of Scpie Holdings Inc., a leading malpractice insurer in California, Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2002.
Bob Vineyard, CLU
Two sites (including one PDF report) provide additional insight into the issue of med mal & tort reform.
From the CBO http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4968&sequence=0
there seems to be no conclusive evidence that tort reform that caps general damages will have any significant effect on med mal losses, and in turn, the premiums charged. One truth that echo’s throughout is the factoring of legal expenses associated with defending suits.
The other reference from the Insurance Institute http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/medicalmal/whitepaper/ has a PDF that sheds additional insight into the issues of med mal & tort reform. Note that less than half the payouts for med mal suits ends up in the litigants pocket, and less than a quarter of the payout falls under general damages (pain & suffering).
If one presumes that tort reform will lead to a 50% reduction in payout for general damages, (admittedly, 50% is an exaggerated figure), the net reduction in claims would be estimated at 12%. With overall claims increasing at 8%+ annually the net reduction in premiums would be 4% and that reduction would be only for the first year caps were instituted.
Granted, this is an oversimplified math assumption but it is logical and follows empirical data.
Med mal is an issue, and it has the effect of not only driving up the overall cost of health care, but rationing the availability as well. Tort reform is needed, but instilling caps is only a bandaid.

Attorneys are furiously filing medical malpractice lawsuits in Cook County to beat damage caps

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels

Subscribe

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels