A news station reveals a doctor’s name after a malpractice settlement

What a lousy piece of gutter journalism…Seems that the ancient Hollywood caricature of the journalist as an alcoholic, psychopathic, devious liar is wrong after all;…they are worse…

I find the article to be very skewed. First of all, they listed that physician’s name without even offering proof that he made a mistake in her care. Allergy shots are given all the time, and allergists do keep patients at the office afterwards (at least the first time) in the event of a serious reaction. A serious reaction is a risk… So did he really make a mistake in “overdosing” her with the allergen or is that what the patient’s husband claims is the reason for her death? Just because he settled doesn’t mean he overdosed her. People settle out of court all the time to avoid a lengthy trial and a variety of other reasons. I think it’s wrong to list his name like that when they had agreed not to do so.

Is there really a need to this? Expose them? As a patient and having met some inconsiderate doctors – personal or otherwise and whom I’d just love to slap a malpractice,having their names in public is simply inhuman. One doesn’t have to destroy another person’s life, however tainted it might be. Give them a chance to better themselves. If they’ll do it again, I have no reservations.

CJD, because it’s like this… physicians are the ambulance and you and your colleagues are the ambulance chasers. Is that simple enough for you?
Or let me quote Mark Twain,
“It is interesting to note that criminals have multiplied of late, and lawyers have also; but I repeat myself.”

Another example of lousy pseudojournalism by someone obviously ignorant of both law and medicine.

In the U.S. there are two systems: criminal and civil.

Unlike Great Britain, in the U.S. there is no avenue for private criminal action. Thus if someone feels that a criminal action should be pursued one needs to present evidence to a state’s attorney such as a district attorney.

When someone dies, and a criminal action is contemplated, as a generally principle, some malice must be present. To establish malice one must either intend to kill, intend to cause serious bodily harm and death as a byproduct results, or “wanton conduct” which ignores a significant risk of very serious harm has to have been performed and someone dies as a result, or a person dies during the course of a commission of a felony that inherently involves significant danger to another, such as armed robbery.

If none of the above apply, and a criminal prosecution is still contemplated, then involuntary manslaughter is the proper charge.

There’s nothing in this poorly written story that seems to have the above apply. Maybe so, but it’s not reflected in the story.

As for civil actions, there are two approaches: legal, as in a court trial, and out of court compromise, such as a mutual settlement or arbitration.

One major point that most of the public and the virtually all doctors do not realize is that in civil settlements the underlyiong premise is not blame, it’s redress of imbalance.

When my wife called a tree trimmer and had a tree cut down that she didn’t realize was 8 inches over the property line onto our neighbor’s land we settled in a “civil” manner by paying the neighbor $500. He lost a tree, we lost $500. We’re even. Done. Now the $500 is not a tree and the tree is not $500, but in our legal system, for better or for worse, for the past 1000 years, or more, money has been used as a means to redress imbalances. Now, it is admitted, it is an absolute fiction to think that money of any amount is equal to a human life, but it is the method for redress in our system.

In this case the plaintiff, the dead woman’s spouse, settled the case, apparently outside of a court trial. He settled. he agreed. If the entire world thinks it was a lousy settlement, it’s still that individual’s settlement. And his responsibility.

If he settled by himself, alone, then I submit, he had a fool for a client. If he was not well served by an attorney then, there is such an entity as legal malpractice.

Settlements in medical malpractice cases are often confidential. This is a requirement imposed by the medical provider or the insurance company. It is not necessarily in the public interest, especially where the number and size of the settlements by a particular provider would alert future patients to a bad actor.

I would prefer that there be no confidentiality. Most of my clients have felt the same way.

Maybe we could adopt some special terms that would not be dollars and cents but would convey the magnitude of each settlement. I suggest they could be similar to coffee sizes I read once in a Dave Barry article: Tall, Grande, Grande Supremo and Grandissimaximo Giganto de Humongo-Rama-Lama-Ding-Dong.

Primum non nocere…first do no harm. The allergist should never have given this whore immunotherapy to begin with…no one ever died from allergic rhinitis…he should have let that bitch keep scratching and sneezing the rest of her life…

“The number of suits/amounts of settlement is a very suggestive, though not definitive, figure.”

In reality no. It has a lot more to do with your specialty. I know an excellent neurosurgeon with multiple suits and a rather poor internist with none. Suits have little to do with quality rather specialty risk.

“Uhh–you are a statistical idiot”

Really. Please do show the “statistics” to show us how “revealing” the numbers are. In reality you give NO justification for your statement. Just WHO is the statistical idiot? In most states “numbers” of lawsuits are not hidden, in fact they are on medical board websites. But hey have you even BOTHERED to look at your state’s medical board website? No, it is easier to pontificate than to research. Please take the time to look up my state’s website http://www.azmd.gov. Take the time to look up any doctor in my state. The number of lawsuit payments is there in black and white. So are board actions and certifications. Seems pretty transparent to me.

Did you look at the website?

Everything has a cost. Confidentiality costs because it is of value to the physician. That is, for the maintenance of a sealed record the physician is inevitably willing to pay more because this is of value.

While the plaintiffs will often state that they would like to have no confidentiality clause, it would no doubt be reflected in the settlement offer. Perhaps something like this: $250,000 we all keep our mouths shut, $100,000 you can talk but the physician reserves the right to sue the plaintiff for defamation if he goes too far, $10,000 the plaintiff can talk with immunity from a defamation suit. The ratio of dollar values will differ in each case depending on the value of the silence.

In any even there is always a price point for any of the above three levels of publicity about the case. Though the plaintiff complains they wish the gag clause were not there, they did however accept cash for their silence. For them to claim that the silence was forced on them is a lie; they sold such silence for cash.

I’m only wildly guessing at how the two parties might actually value the silence.

I would be disappointed if the plaintiffs would be willing to sell out for silence for even less.

Here’s the relevant portion from ME
A move to ban all secret settlements?

There’s been a trend in recent years to limit confidential settlements. More than a dozen states now have—or are considering—such restrictions, particularly in cases involving issues of public safety. A few states have passed “sunshine laws” under which malpractice settlements as well as court judgments become part of the public record.

In Massachusetts, the state medical board’s Web site lists doctors’ malpractice payments as part of their profiles, although the amounts are reported only as “average,” “below average,” or “above average.” In Florida, the Department of Health’s Web site lists all settlements and verdicts—including the specific amount paid. As department spokesman Bill Parizek explains: “If you’re shopping for a car, you want all the information you can get. If you’re shopping for a doctor, you should also have the information you need.”

In South Carolina, the state’s federal judges recently voted unanimously to ban all court-approved sealed settlements. Such agreements, proponents held, make the courts complicit in preventing the public from learning the truth about hazardous products, sexually abusive priests, and incompetent physicians. The new rule will apply only to the federal courts, however, not to state courts, which handle most malpractice cases.

South Carolina’s ban will cover only court-approved settlements, which are typically required in cases brought by plaintiffs who are minors, mentally incompetent, or wrongful-death heirs. It would not prevent other plaintiffs and defendants from reaching confidential settlements out of court, which is how most malpractice suits are settled.