But then you’re just fixing one problem and creating another. So now the jury won’t believe the doctors because they don’t understand. They will believe them because they do, and NOW regular people like me won’t know how to defend ourselves real well because we don’t have a lawyer to help us…

so how does that help us?

“The problem is a “new” system may not include you and your buddies. Then the real fight will begin.”

If physicians were to propose a program that didn’t infringe upon constitutional rights, there wouldn’t be much anyone can say. The percentage of lawyers who do med mal is so small that you wouldn’t get much fight at all. And those guys can make just as much money doing other things as well.

The problem for you is a “new” system will likely take away the limited amounts of autonomy you enjoy today, and probably reduce your income.

CJD

Actually I have seen NO statistics that support (or not) the above contention which is why I was asking the above writer for statistics CJD. Additionally I never said this was my “personal opinion”. How about you keep your snide comments to yourself CJD.

Actually, it’s the logical conclusion to YOUR personal opinion. Now if you want to call yourself wrong, feel free.

“Before CJD brings up the 7th amendment right to a jury trial remember that there are a number of precedents for this in the U.S.: administrative systems for workers’ compensation, Social Security disability insurance, vaccine injury liability, as well as for maritime, tax, and bankruptcy-related matters. Also arbitration in disagrements with brokerages.”

This is where your legal training has let you down. All of what you mention above are not suits at common law which existed at the time of the enactment of the 7th. And you can still sue under the VICP. Most people don’t, however.

Arbitration is a contractual agreement which has no bearing on the issue of the Constitutionality. If you want to make it part of your contract with your patients, you can (broadly speaking).

Putting all that aside, though, health courts so far haven’t gotten anywhere in the legislatures because the insurers aren’t backing them. So it’s an academic discussion at best.

And you would still need lawyers to present the case, to elicit testimony, etc.

CJD

So in other words your “personal opinion”.

“If you were injured today as a result of medical malpractice and couldn’t work, how exactly would you pay all your regular bills and fund your medical malpractice case?”

The idea is to leave lawyers out of the process. You tell me which system sounds better. A judge with expertise and a panel of nonbiased experts reviewing the information or the present system in which each side brings in biased “experts” who are paid for their testimony. Throw in a jury which may or may not understand the complexities of a given case. Before CJD brings up the 7th amendment right to a jury trial remember that there are a number of precedents for this in the U.S.: administrative systems for workers’ compensation, Social Security disability insurance, vaccine injury liability, as well as for maritime, tax, and bankruptcy-related matters. Also arbitration in disagrements with brokerages.

So is that statement a justification for lawyers taking 40% of the award?

Because the theory behind health courts is that juries aren’t smart enough to get it. Yet they rule in favor of the physician 75% of the time, which physicians say is correct.

“Don’t forget about the 40% of expenses that the lawyers suck up while they are “fighting for the little guy”.”

If you were injured today as a result of medical malpractice and couldn’t work, how exactly would you pay all your regular bills and fund your medical malpractice case?