However, this is a story of “man bites dog” i.e. a newsworthy event because it is sensational, and atypical. Many studies (and my own experience) support that MOST medical malpractice suits brought have significant merit at least in terms of there having been actual malpractice. Those suits that are brought, and fail, most often do so because a plaintiff who proves malpractice is nonetheless unable to prove (to satisfaction of a jury, per some fairly confusing “jury instructions”) that this was also a “proximate cause” or “substantial factor” in producing a defined injury. Of course, no case should be brought without both malpractice and causation of injury, but a plaintiff has the burden of proof on both issues, and the sheer medical complexity of the evidence makes proof of causation inherently difficult in many cases, even where unbiased experts would agree that there was some malpractice producing harm.

However, a verdict against plaintiff on either “no malpractice” or “no proof of causation” is counted as a “defense verdict” by the malpractice insurers, who tout the statistic that a majority of suits to verdict for “for the defense” as evidence that most suits are meritless.

I would invite you to define what a “non junk” malpractice suit is, and a “good expert.” I would then be happy to engage in discussion of how our files stack up against your definition, and we can then see if you would acknowledge the proper, important role of meritorious civil suits.