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.

This reports the individual suits, when they occured and whether the amounts were below average, average or above average. It also reports DPH disciplinary actions and hospital disciplinary actions.

And there is no expiration date. There are violations in there from the ’80s

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

Considering how hard defamation is to prove, why would anyone give up $150,000 for that?

By the way, there was a recent tax law case involving settlement clauses from the case where Dennis Rodman kicked that photographer. Personal injury settlements aren’t taxable, but confidentiality clauses are.

CJD

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.

B: “and it did not include the number of suits, only those settled.”
Wouldn’t you be interested in the number of suits settled which COULD (the operative word here) indicate doctor competence issues? I was dropped from a suit (it was BS) and have to list it from here to eternity for every job or hospital priveledges I request. A dropped suit has nothing to do with doctor competence. You heard just recently (like we all did) 4/10 suits did not involve error or injury so just how dose the number of suits show anything? In reality it doesn’t. Once again you failed to show any coorelation between suit number and level of competence.

WRONG! In very few states are the number and amounts of lawsuits against doctors made public. AZ may be an exception, but it was not clear whether its database included only court-supervised settlements–and it did not include the number of suits, only those settled. In any case, the following link from medical economics provides some background, if you’re interested.

http://www.memag.com/memag/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=111356

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.