Years ago a good friend and colleague was sued for a soft tissue injury from an IV infiltration. It was a particularly bad infiltration in that it ultimately required a skin graft to cover a 2 to 3 cm size area on the arm. The nutty part was the 2 year old patient was asking 6 million dollars for a spot on the arm; the case was more than usually memorable to me because it was a liver transplantation.

After my colleague was served and I heard about the case I recognized that it was one that I had participated in, but the attorney had for some reason not found my name on the paper work. I contacted a hospital attorny and created my own written deposition and submitted this to both the defense and plaintiffs attorneys stating that to the best of my recollection it was I who had placed the IV line in question.

I'm certain the plaintifs attorney had never heard of physicians voluntarily adding themselves as co-defendants. Further boosting my credibility was the fact that the patient's mother had on several occasions following the original surgery requested my participation in her son's care for which I obliged. At a later surgery for her child, I had to add to the informed consent process the reminder for mom that she did have pending litigation against me and offer to find another anesthesiologist. Her decision to have me proceed even then with her son's care was the stake in the heart of her lawyer's case.

Physician cooperation can be a very potent defense against suits.

By the way gas I have also been named in "shotgun" suits. My name was on the chart. But instead of actually FIGURING out what happened it is easier for the sharks to name everybody. Why not, it is no skin off their penis. It is not about figuring out what happened it's all about the $$$$$$.

So let me get this straight. I get named in a shotgun suit. The lawyer clearly did not do his job in the first place (ie. figuring out WHO was responsible) and you expect me to help him do his job?

Exactly, have the cake and eat it too.

Yet you do nothing at all to get out of it or reduce costs?


You miss the fundamental point, who dragged him there in the first place.What about some degree of responsibility from the lawyer too.Shooting aimlessly is definitely not one of them,or is that ?

"how do you propose the lawyer determine who was responsible when the physicians won't give evidence either way prior to filing suit?"

Hey I've got a novel idea. READ THE CHART.

"They read it, and what do you know, your name was on it too!"

So every person whose name is "on the chart" get's named, deposed, etc etc. Your a big boy how about not breaking out the shotgun and
actually try to figure out what happened before naming instead wasting a bunch of people's time. Ohh I get it. It's not about figuring out what happened...it's about getting the most people possible so you have the most "deep pocket's" to work with. Stupid me and I thought you actually gave a damn about truth and justice.

"Truth and Justice"
What's that have to do with me making my house/porsche payments?

CJD

"You know damn well you can file to extend the time frame to when the injury is or should have been discovered. "

Where did you get this? You cannot "extend" the time frame. It is what it is - the date of the action, or in certain limited circumstances, a time after the age of majority or the injury should have been discovered. It's still just two years.

And given the restrictiveness some courts put on the "should have been discovered" clause, you don't want to rely too heavily on that.

Like I said, you clearly indicate that you don't care about the truth or the victim, when you are probably in the best position to serve both.

"There are instances, however, in which an injury is not discovered for months or years after it occurs. In these cases, under medical malpractice law, the statute of limitations is applied when the injury is discovered or when the injury should have been discovered."

"In addition, in some states the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice suit may be delayed for an injured child until the child reaches the age of majority"


Oops guess you need to go back to law school eh CJDlite.

"Like I said, you clearly indicate that you don't care about the truth or the victim,"

Please don't lecture me when you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

I remember the first medical malpractice case I filed. I looked at the charts, spoke privately to several physicians about what happened, and then filed suit against only those I felt were responsible. As soon as the defendant doctors were served, they (more accurately their lawyers) all did the same thing. They blamed all the malpractice on the doctors that weren't named as defendants in the lawsuit. So then I had to amend the complaint and name everybody in the room. I had to do that, because a jury may have put a percentage of the blame on one of the doctors that was left out of the suit. That's the reason shotgun lawsuits are filed, because the defendant doctors always place all the blame on any doctor who isn't named. Their attorneys know that all defendants must be in a single lawsuit, and a plaintiff can't collect against someone ho isn't a defendant. Don't blame the plaintiff's attorneys for a defense attorney tactic.

You missed the point of my earlier post. The defense lawyers don't CARE who is truly responsible, they just try to put blame on anyone except their client and hope the jury believes it to the greatest extent possible. And lets be honest, sometimes it works, so it would be legal malpractice not to name as a defendant a doctor that another doctor is claiming is negligent. What would I tell my client if the jury came back and assessed a significant percentage of the negligence on a doctor I didn't sue, even though three other doctors testified he was negligent. That's what the insurance companies pay defense attorneys to do. All the insurance companies care about is paying as little money as possible, so the lawyers they hire try place the blame on anyone else, no matter who or why. BTW, after I named everybody, the new defendant doctors agreed with my first conclusions that the original defendant doctors were negligent, of course, and then the case settled and the new defendants didn't pay any money. The only reason the case settled is because I sued the new defendants, who knew how full of baloney the first defendants were. I don't mean to be direspectful, but I don't think you understand the dynamics of a malpractice case any better than I know how to treat patients. I would also bet that we agree on a lot more than you might think. The real bad guys are the malpractice insurance carriers, who force both their insured doctors and injured plaintiffs into this kind of conduct.
I think its sad when I go to a settlement conference with several defendant doctors and I tell them they are getting sued not because I think they comitted malpractice, but because their co-defendants are testifying that they comitted malpractice.

A Naperville dentist called a flagrant foul on Chicago Bulls' mascot Benny the Bull on Monday, suing the team over a high-five gone awry.Dr. Don Kalant Sr. alleged he was sitting near courtside...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-benny-bull-suedapr22,1,2429632.story

What is wrong with this picture, indeed!