40 percent of malpractice cases are baseless: A lawyer's take

Here’s their explanation:

Rieders, the personal injury lawyer, is also a member of Pennsylvania’s Patient Safety Authority, which collects reports of medical errors and studies them.
He puts little significance in the finding that 40 percent of cases involved no error or no injury. He contends that reflects the fact that, because doctors and hospitals are secretive about unfavorable medical outcomes, patients often file lawsuits just to find out what happened.

I thought that it was expensive and time-consuming to bring forward malpractice suits. How many lawyers would go forward with a lawsuit, “just to find out what happened?”

Comments

Anonymous
“because doctors and hospitals are secretive about unfavorable medical outcomes, patients often file lawsuits just to find out what happened”
All that is needed is to review the medical records to determine if there is malpractice. The medical records are available to the family. Malpractice can be determined by reading the medical records. During depositions, the doctors always say, ” if that’s what I wrote 3 years ago, then that’s what happened”. ‘Just to find out what happened’is a lame excuse and is not the real reason. The real reason, from the point of view of the lawyer, is ‘maybe they will settle’. It’s also called extortion.
Anonymous
ha, ha, ha! Medical records are often tissues of lies, particularly in instances in which something bad happens. Patients must have the opportunity to examine doctors under oath to get the real story as to why the doctors killed, disfigured or injured themselves or their loved ones.
Anonymous
“He puts little significance in the finding that 40 percent of cases involved no error or no injury.”
This statement is misleading in what it omits. Which is par for the course when you’re lobbying.
When doctors clam up, they don’t help themselves
How many lawyers would go forward with a lawsuit, “just to find out what happened?”
As many as think there is suggestion of a cause of action. A lawsuit to get records is sometimes necessary. Deposing doctors is sometimes part of what’s necessary. Sometimes filing suit is necessary to toll the statute of limitations.
Anonymous
Anon 1:54 p.m., you are placing far too much faith in the accuracy and completeness of the medical record. Sometimes stuff doesn’t get documented, usually unintentionally but sometimes on purpose. And most lay people can’t determine malpractice just by inspecting the medical record; they also need to know what the standard of care is supposed to be.
Several years ago I experienced an adverse event that resulted in permanent damage. It was pretty clear at the time that something had gone awry, but for some reason it was never documented, unfortunately leading the primary care doc to draw some wrong conclusions. The hospital later denied all knowledge of the event, based on the medical record. In a roundabout way I eventually learned that the hospital concluded the medical record had probably been falsified so people’s backsides could be covered, but there was no way of proving it because no one would admit to it.
I wasn’t interested in suing so I just let it go. Sometimes I think this was a bad decision. Considering what this incident cost me, I had a right to know the truth of what happened. With litigation, the one advantage (if you can call it that) is that it compels the parties involved to speak the truth. Otherwise patients and families simply have no leverage.
Anonymous
“Redmond said hospitals support a no-fault system that would compensate injured victims using a schedule of payments based on severity of injury. He expects to soon see a proposal introduced in the state Legislature.”
Can someone explain to me why the type of injury alone should determine compensation? As opposed to the nature of the injury and its effect on the injured person’s life?
Anonymous
“Considering what this incident cost me”
Not a lot of sympathy here jackass…
Anirban
Anon 7:27
See another doctor.Dont feed your current one. That is how market operates. if he is the only one in your area, speaks of other socioeconomic issues. Take an active participation in changing that. Hopefully things will change for you
Anonymous
our hospital records are transcribed in some Indian sweat shop They are quite hilarious and entertaining to read. Strange words get inserted out of context and sentence structure is changed to what makes sense to an English larner. I have no time in hell to proof read and correct them but it might be embarrasing and hilarious if I have to go to court with them. If patients were curious to read them I am sure they would be like “what the hell?”
Anonymous
Some of the lay persons and some doctors may be interested in my take on what my medical record strive to be.
All of my notes, summaries, and dictations are created with only 2 purposes in mind. First, to allow me, five or ten years in the future, to recreate my thought process, to facilitate recall, and second, to allow another practitioner to have an overview of the patients care at that instant time.
Note that it’s only for myself and other potential physicians, not patients. So I suppose a deposition may be necessary, occasionally, to find out what happened.
Anonymous
Anonymous 7:27 p.m., the person you so rudely dissed said there was permanent damage. Apparently he didn’t sue.
So what’s your problem? The real jackass here is you.
Anonymous
My problem is you assholes who say “Oh, I could sue, but I won’t”…most of the time the alleges malpractice is in your imagination…for example the post in question is a perfect example. I am sure if he told us about his disability and how the hospital conspired to screw him, he would just display how much of a lunatic he is…
I am glad he posted here though, it gives us docs a reminder of how crazy you people out there are so we can better protect ourselves through referrals…
Anonymous
The lawyers go through with the suits because they know the hosptial/doctor has a big fat insurance policy that will pay for a nice settlement, of which he recieves a BIG chunk…

40 percent of malpractice cases are baseless: A lawyer’s take

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels

Subscribe

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels