Are you ready if court pays it for you ?

I can’t tell you the percent – at least not based on this study – because I haven’t seen the raw data and don’t know how they decided the insurer’s overhead per case. But with a complex malpractice case, with qualified experts, you will expect to spend at least $10-15K minimum, and that’s way low if it tries and they testify.

“DR’s do “charity” work everyday. They often don’t realize it until after the fact when the insurance then patient’s refuse to pay.”

As do lawyers – just because we bill doesn’t always mean we get paid. And insurance defense lawyers deal with the same cuts from insurance companies that doctors do. Pro bono work for lawyers, is charity work that is known to be charity work from the start.

“While I am not against docs serving as gratis expert witnesses (it would cut down “expert witness” jobs and obvious bias based on payment source). When is the last time a lawyer was “required” to do anything for free?”

I don’t think they should have to. But considering that many physicians will, without even seeing the opinion of the physician expert or what it’s based upon, dismiss any plaintiff’s expert as a “whore”, that was simply a solution which I thought might eliminate that bias. The expert witness requirement is one physicians want, but then they don’t want to serve as expert witnesses even for meritorious cases and still want to chastise (to put it mildly) everyone who does. Or at least everyone who does for the plaintiff.

Lawyers can be appointed by a judge to handle a case pro bono, by the way.

A: What percent of overhead is for expert witnesses?

B: My understanding is the lawyer’s fee is 25-33% on top of expenses.

C: DR’s do “charity” work everyday. They often don’t realize it until after the fact when the insurance then patient’s refuse to pay. Of course they don’t wrap it up in “special” word’s like “pro bonon”. It’s just another day on the job.

D: While I am not against docs serving as gratis expert witnesses (it would cut down “expert witness” jobs and obvious bias based on payment source). When is the last time a lawyer was “required” to do anything for free?

And, who knows – the “overhead” may be fixed costs like ordering medical records, adjusters salaries, etc., all costs that would not change.

And as the study points out, at least as big a problem is the 1/6 victims who have experienced malpractice and are injured and recieve NO payment whatsoever, many crippled and in need of money after years of waiting and hoping for recovery.

In my opinion the biggest problem is that 50%+ of payouts end up going to overhead. There has to be a better way.

Under your proposed system, would the injured party’s future medical bills be covered regardless of cost? And when you say “no fault”, are you saying that they would be compensated regardless of the existence of negligence?

CJD