Monday, May 29, 2006
"The trial bar needs unpredictability"
It is because of the jury's unpredictability that leads to payouts and settlements:The trial bar desperately wants the unpredictable nature of a jury to remain in the equation. Even though most cases that make it to court are won by the physician, the unpredictability of the outcome encourages physicians and their insurers to agree to a payment for an alleged error, even though in some cases the physician knows that none occurred.
As we have said for years, a system in which 75 percent of cases that make it to court are won by the doctor suggests that some or them never should have made it that far; a system in which only a few of those injured by malpractice ever receive compensation does not offer justice.
Posted by Kevin |
link
| Comments (6)
| 
Comments:
Hmm...it seems that the authors of this post want a no-fault compensation system...I have warned about that before; having worked under such a system for almost twenty years now (in Norway), I can only warn that if and when you Americans are going for such a system, learn from the mistakes of others. Over here, the system functions like a racket: It is filled to the brim with lawyers; doctors are only peripherally used as "consultants" and then often not understood, cases end up in trials anyway with the laywers more or less exchanging money with each other with the blessing of a judge (no jury in civil cases), all payed for by the tax-payer and no risk at all for the plaintiff. Around 40 % get a pay-off, making it the lottery in the world with the best odds for the players. If the patients aren't satisfied with getting the money, they can always use another governmental agency to exact the revenge they crave over the doctor even after they have collected their money from the no-fault compensation scheme (because, according to the lawyers, there is no such thing as no-fault, somebody can always be blamed).
Think carefully. The system you have may be broken, but if you want another, think twice and plan carefully before implementing something that actually could be worse. And keep the lawyers OUT of it; they'll only mess it up with their ignorance and greed (as they have here).
Think carefully. The system you have may be broken, but if you want another, think twice and plan carefully before implementing something that actually could be worse. And keep the lawyers OUT of it; they'll only mess it up with their ignorance and greed (as they have here).
If only we had a study showing unpredictability. Alas, no one has examined verdicts to look for that. And now, after the most recent nonpartisan study destroyed so many of the physicians' claims, it's likely we never will.
# posted by 
: 7:13 AM
: 7:13 AM
lies, damn lies, and statistics. One could argue much of the near 40% in the latest study could be weeded out by an non-biased expert panel. I saw the same study but reached a different conclusion.
# posted by : 1:30 PM
: 1:30 PM
A: Might be cheaper
B: Weed out the BS
C: It is only pointless if your ilk don't "benefit".
B: Weed out the BS
C: It is only pointless if your ilk don't "benefit".
# posted by : 4:24 PM
: 4:24 PM
1. How will it be cheaper
2. The BS cases already are being weeded out, as the least biased study to date points out.
3. We don't make money on any cases we lose.
Post a Comment
2. The BS cases already are being weeded out, as the least biased study to date points out.
3. We don't make money on any cases we lose.
# posted by : 4:32 PM
: 4:32 PM
