Yes, we sued the radiologist and the Foundation. Yes we still need you. But you must consider the reasons.

The radiologist was sued because … well that issue speaks for itself. The Foundation was sued because of the cover up that followed. Eventually the minutes of the (inhouse) medical review were obtained and the disclosures prove the Foundation knew the problem yet ignored it for a long time.

We need you … yes. We do need you. We need local care in a rural area. We need you because the old saying is so true – “one bad apple does not spoil the whole bunch”. There are many excellent physicans practicing in the walls of this Foundation. And they deserve our respect, our patronage, and our dollars. They, like many of you, are the essence of the oath. The *other* one doctor in particular deserves none of that.

I agree too that you must stand up for what is right. I applaud those of you that do. YOU are the best of your chosen profession.
Thank you.

Tyler, then age 2 now 10, through his lawyer asked for more than 6 million dollars in compensation for this injury. All the while this litigation was going on he continued to recieve his care from the very physicians named in his lawsuit. We continued to provide his care because we felt that ultimately were this to go to trial that showing that Tyler and his mother continuing to choose us over all others was in stark contrast to the inflammatory language of the lawsuit documents. Eventually his lawyer dropped the case after costing us thousands of dollars and dozens of hours in deposition.

Tyler continues to receive his care from the same hospital and physicians he (his mother) believe greivously injured him.

I am looking forward to the situation when a client sues you because he got, surprisingly, the death penalty instead of life imprisonment, in a case where the “standard of care” is the latter.

Would you be so arrogant in a situation like that? Would you condemn so easily the imperfections of any imprecise science, such as medicine or justice?

Most lawsuits we call frivolous are the equivalent of a client suing an attorney because he got 12 months instead of the 9 he expected, based on his idea of justice.

After reading this thread, I realize those of you posting here truly know very little of the “facts” as they exist. The KY Medical Association found that this doctor “proved an immediate threat to his patients” and revolked his license. Granted he has since regained them but only with certain qualifying conditions.

Missed cancers? You bet. Death due to misreadings? Yes Sir. Emotional trauma to those of us affected? Absolutely. My entire life has changed. As has the life of many others in this suit. I have gotten to know several of them through the course of this ordeal.

Are you aware there was a peer review prior to his dismissal. Amazing what was brought to their attention by his peers.

An ambulance chasing attorney? I’m sure those do exist. But that is not the case in this matter.

Lives have been destroyed. Not just patients lives – but our families lives.

Compensation is not of issue here. In fact – when initially discussing my situation with the attorney – he knew it wasn’t about money for me. No amount of money can ever replace what was taken from me and my family. It’s about putting a stop to this doctor (I use that term only because I must) before he wrecks more lives.

It’s like you never read what I’ve written, merely what you want it to be. Which I guess is the preferred method for winning arguments when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Of course, there’s no telling what you’ve said in any of the previous posts, because you’re too cowardly to even give a pseudonym.

This is rude of me, and I don’t wish to say it, but you are being truly – incredibly – dense. It’s a little scary to think that you might be a practising lawyer.

1. Once more, you repeat your pattern of never responding intelligently to an argument, but flit from one issue to another after being defeated at each.

In your latest post, you again fail to acknowledge that you were wrong to deny that large numbers of doctors get indiscriminately sued when they are completely and totally innocent of wrongdoing. Or, if despite the overwhelming factual evidence you still feel you are correct, to offer any sort of defense for your position.

2. Lets see where little JD has traipsed to now, shall we? He’s now flitted on to yammer incoherently about

a. tort reform and its perceived weaknesses,

b. why we should never critique studies but accept all of them

c. an astonishingly naive fantasy of how physicians perceive themselves.

In responding, I’d note the following:

1. Nowhere in this thread, not once, have I made claims about the desirability or otherwise of tort reform. Yet we have the following tirade from Ms.Panties-in-a-bunch:

How about the fact that the nation’s largest med mal insurer said that caps on noneconomic damages would affect at most 1% of their losses. Not a study, but DIRECT FROM THE HORSE’S MOUTH… What’s your opinion on that? I mean, the centerpiece of your “cure” for this “crisis” has no effect? How’s that grab you?

Well, for starters, it leads me to believe I’m wasting my time arguing with a particularly dull fellow – I never said anything like what you ascribe to me. Secondly, since you’ve now asked what I think of it, I do not think tort reform is a perfect solution to the med mal crisis. The crisis faced by doctors, and the larger problem of errors in health care delivery, is exceptionally complex and multifactorial such that any one measure (particularly one that is meant to provide symptomatic relief) will not completely obliterate the problems.

However, I do believe that tort reform can definitely be part of the solution, and the available data clearly show, on balance, that it can work. The actual data from capped states is pretty conclusive. By the way, your naivete is charming: data counts for infinitely more than claims, whoever’s mouth it came from. Folks in medicine have learnt to respect that rule.

The thing I do not like about the type of tort reforms frequently proposed is that there is a small number of plaintiffs who might be paid less than they should be paid.

A large part of that problem of course is that trial lawyers demand such an exorbitant portion of the indemnity payment. (It’s really quite shocking when you look at what they charge – I don’t think there is a single profession on earth that is as greedy. The tired excuse trotted out is that they only get paid when they win, but as a principle that’s pretty disgusting since they are basically garnishing all their money from the very people who actually may have been genuinely harmed, and secondly even then there is no justification for the exorbitant percentages – up to 50%!!)

But the system we currently have is even worse than a tort-reformed scenario – it harms a lot more people in terrible ways. Leave alone the doctors, huge numbers of whom are 100% completely blameless. A bigger problem is the shocking effect the current system has had on the practice of medicine and the health care system in general. There is huge wastage, loss of life, loss of health. Where we are at now is the worst possible scenario, and even tort reform, imperfect as it is, will be better.

Finally, in your last paragraph you go completely bonkers. I never said any of those things. I understand you must feel bad at being repeatedly owned, as the kids say, but really, you can’t expect people to take you seriously in a discussion when you behave like a raving lunatic.

Ever note how you pick some studies to believe and some not to believe? For example, there’s a study from NYU, I believe, which shows that tort reform has no effect on alleged “defensive medicine.” Do you believe that one?

How about the fact that the nation’s largest med mal insurer said that caps on noneconomic damages would affect at most 1% of their losses. Not a study, but DIRECT FROM THE HORSE’S MOUTH. You can find it by Googling GE Medical Protective and Texas and “tort reform.” What’s your opinion on that? I mean, the centerpiece of your “cure” for this “crisis” has no effect? How’s that grab you?

So basically, you’re saying that there is no standard we can or should hold physicians to? What a job. Get paid more than any other profession, never admit a mistake, never have any professional standard for your work, and if you do screw up, you’re only paying someone under 2 year’s salary for a lifetime of pain and suffering.

Good work if you can get it.