Kevin, M.D. - Medical Weblog

Money quote:


As for the argument of the trial lawyers — that those severely disabled from a medical procedure deserve higher jury awards than caps would allow — he said he empathizes.

"If society decides in its infinite wisdom that these few people can have no ceiling on amounts, with juries acting on emotion, then society has to pay for it, and they will pay for it by higher costs of health care and lack of accessibility," he said "I empathize with all catastrophic cases, whether malpractice or workman's compensation, but even with workman's comp, there is a ceiling, even if it's someone else's fault. There is no ceiling for medical malpractice. It's not equality."
 

Nonprofit hospitals in the People's Republic of Massachusetts (which means, pretty much ALL hospitals in the PROM) enjoy charitable immunity with a maximum liability of $20,000

That's TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.
 

Truck drivers, retail stores, builders, engineers, etc., don't have a cap for their negligence, regardless of the injury. If you want workers comp style protection, be prepared for universal health care.

And actually, there are two money quotes:

1. "He hasn't had a payout for a malpractice claim in 15 years, yet his insurance costs are high — just below what obstetricians and neurosurgeons typically pay. When he received last-minute notification that his insurance costs would be skyrocketing, he faced tough choices."

If he hasn't had a payout for 15 years, why has his insurance skyrocketed?

2. "Al-Aswad believes caps on malpractice awards will lower the cost of his insurance"

Despite all evidence to the contrary. The sad thing is Al-Aswad is old enough to remember the last "crisis" of the late '80s.
 

There are all sorts of human endeavors that have liability limitations. Look at your garage parking ticket. Look at your airline ticket. My Medical School limits its own liability by state law to $500K. Similar damage limits exist for public hospitals, such as when a county creates a taxing district for a hospital. We have had cases where private docs were left holding the bag for big judgements where the hospital was the main party at fault, the referring private doc had little involvement but no tort limitations. Massachusetts hospitals are limited to $20,000 from a law in 1971, recently upheld. I was in the town stable (as in horses) with the county fair. There's signs all over notifying you of the liability limitations inherent to the danger of being around horses. Trauma from kicks. E. Coli O157:H7. There are agricultural inherent risk laws in my state limiting liability of the town the management, the owners of the horses if if you enter the stables.

Those are the human endeavors where liability is limited, that I can name off the top of my head. Some may be unique to my state. I'm sure there are more.
 

Your garage parking ticket will not cap the garage's negligence if the thing falls on your head.

Your airline ticket will not cap you damages if the plane crashes (unless it's an international flight which is subject to the Warsaw Treaty). But you get almost strict liability in that case (no fault).

Public hospitals also don't pay the same as private hospitals. So the people working there make a trade off.

"We've had cases. . . " Cite those cases, then - case name and number and court. There are plenty of urban legends out there (Check snopes.com under tort reform or lawsuits for examples).

Signs saying we limit our liability, or waivers saying we limit our liability simply aren't effective. I can put a sign on my car that says "My liability limited to $10," and it means nothing. You generally can't waive negligence.

If you take a horse with a known propensity for kicking into a crowd of kids, you're going to be held liable, waivers and posted signs be damned. Kind of like every dog gets one free bite, every horse gets one free kick.
 

Public hospitals also don't pay the same as private hospitals. So the people working there make a trade off.

What the hell are you talking about??

Patient bills are the same, the personnel are paid the same, and there are virtually no private hospitals in my state anyway. They are all nonprofit hospitals. Same with Massachusetts, virtually none. All nonprofit and protected by state law. And I say virtually only because I guess there must be one out there, I can't think of one after medical school and postgraduate training there.

The malpractice case was described to me by our medical society's outside counsel, one of the biggest medical-legal firms in the country.

I believe him more than I believe you. The case ain't an urban legend. I have no desire to reveal my name or state to the likes of you, I know enough about the case to know it's true as described.

If you take a horse with a known propensity for kicking into a crowd of kids, you're going to be held liable, waivers and posted signs be damned.

Sit down, listen very carefully. If the horse is taken into the crowd of kids, it's not in the stable any more.

The law limits the liability of someone who walks into the stable, where the horses live and owners care for them. The law has been in effect for some time, has been tested, thank you.

>>Signs saying we limit our liability, or waivers saying we limit our liability simply aren't effective. I can put a sign on my car that says "My liability limited to $10," and it means nothing. You generally can't waive negligence.

wow

you learned that in law school?

I'm not talking about someone putting up a sign, I'm talking about statutes on the books limiting liability on any of a number of human endeavors.
 

I took your advice and looked up Snopes.

I invite all to look up "tort reform" on their site.

The author noted a whole bunch of silly lawsuits that never happened.

The author then goes on to say:

"Though the cases described in the e-mail are fake, real lawsuits of equal silliness can be found in abundance. An equally impressive list could easily have been compiled by anyone with access to a news database and a few moments to spare. For instance.........."

Then the author goes on to name a bunch of silly cases that are true.

Of course, at this point, the next talking point from the trial bar is that we physicians have nothing to worry about, since after all, the cases failed in court and "justice was done".

Pardon me if I don't share that sanguine attitude when I'm the target of the lawsuit.
 

That's all great, but guess what? There is not a single tort reform proposal out there aimed at actually stopping suits from being filed. They're all aimed at screwing those injured the worst.

By the way, if the counsel for the medical society described a case to you, then clearly you have the whole story. You should take that as gospel, as I'm sure you would if you'd only heard the plaintiff's side.

You must have very narrow halls in your stables, such that no children could ever enter. How you maneuver I don't know.
 

Cue up ATLA Talking point Number 7 in 3.....2.....1

>>There is not a single tort reform proposal out there aimed at actually stopping suits from being filed. They're all aimed at screwing those injured the worst.

No tort reform proposal (except government entities) ever contemplate limiting economic damages, just noneconomic. As you well know.

If there is a catastrophically injured person as a result of a medical malpractice incident who has to worry about providing for future medical care despite winning a case, it is the fault of the plaintiff's attorney who clearly failed to calculate economic damages properly.

I'm sure the lawyer calculated the contingency fee with laser precision though.
 

"If there is a catastrophically injured person as a result of a medical malpractice incident who has to worry about providing for future medical care despite winning a case, it is the fault of the plaintiff's attorney who clearly failed to calculate economic damages properly."

So tell me, beyond medical bills (which go to pay you) what economic damages does a child have? A stay at home mother? How about a retired person?

They pay their medical bills, and then they have . . . . ? Oh yeah, $250,000 for a lifetime of being unable to walk, or living with the disfigurement of being horrible burned, or being fed through a tube.

Or are you proposing attributing to them the same salary that the average physician makes?

Cue AMA talking points in 5, 4, 3, 2. . .
 

>>So tell me, beyond medical bills (which go to pay you) what economic damages does a child have? A stay at home mother? How about a retired person?

Custodial care is economic damage. The things the stay-at-home mother did has to be done by someone else and is economic damage.