This letter explains why, referring to the recent Studdert study detailing a broken malpractice system:
The AP reporter got it right the first time. The report found that 3 percent of the claims had absolutely no adverse outcome for the patient at all. Thirty-seven percent had an adverse outcome but there was no negligence or malpractice involved.The paper says, on page 2029, “We found that only a small fraction of claims lacked documented injuries. However, approximately one third of claims were without merit in the sense that the alleged adverse outcomes were not attributable to error.”
In Mr. Martin’s world, adverse outcome, no matter if there was no malpractice, equals a meritorious claim. I do not think most people see things that way. Despite all the things that doctors and physicians do for people, there are still illnesses and injuries that get worse and cause suffering and death.
Related posts:
- Not every medical error is malpractice
- Has John Edwards betrayed trial lawyers?
- How trial lawyers will solve the specialist shortage in the ED
- Charlie Weis: Malpractice trial reactions
- The NY Times on saying sorry
- The Charlie Weis malpractice trial
- ER crowding and your risk of dying from a heart attack
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 26 comments }
Kevin,
You seem to have a problem with CLAIMS. Won’t there always be CLAIMS, meritorious and unmeritorious, no matter what system we use? How else will people know if their CLAIMS are meritorious or not? There must be some process which examines the information and a third party who makes that conclusion.
Therefore, the challenge for any system is how well does it sift the meritorious from the unmeritorious. And the conclusions of the Studdert study was that our present system does a very good job on that point.
In whatever system you choose, you’ll be complaining about that third party decision maker because they won’t always agree with you. Even if it’s one with all physicians.
Kevin is not the only one having problems with CLAIMS. The ones that should do the first shifting of meritorious vs. non-meritorious claims is actually the patient. If you know – or ought to know – in your heart that the injury for which you claim compensation is the result of your disease, your accident or your lifestyle; and that it was there before you even saw the doctor; and yet you still press a claim against him or her; then you are – in my diagnostic book – a psychopath and ought to be dealt with accordingly.
“to the recent Studdert study detailing a broken malpractice system:”
Simply repeating it won’t make it true, Mr. Bush. . . I mean, Kevin.
The lawyer should review the claim and the chart better to know if there is a legitimate claim. If he doesn’t know enough to know then he should have an “expert” or two or three review it before a claim is made.
For my physician group and risk retention group only 1/15 claims ultimately go to trial. 95% of claims result in NO PAYMENT whatsoever. This tells me that way too many claims are made without legitimacy. Yet there is no penalty for that. What a crappy profession if you only get it right 5% of the time.
How about a plaintiff asking for an explanation of events before filing a lawsuits and the stature is near expiring?? No, never happens. Often the first time you are aware there ever was a problem is subpeona
“How about a plaintiff asking for an explanation of events before filing a lawsuits and the stature is near expiring?? No, never happens.”
Yeah, because medical providers are real fonts of information. They can’t wait to bare open their souls under oath. All patients need do is ask and their provider will take plenty of time to explain in plain English their actions.
Or the Lawyer can actually READ the chart. I’m guessing I’m not the only one who has been named in a lawsuit just because a computer dropped your name somewhere in the chart, even though you never saw or laid eyes on the patient. And then your attorney tries to get you dropped…no way Jose! We got you, we’re shaking the tree, let’s see who else you may throw under the Bus!
“Yeah, because medical providers are real fonts of information. They can’t wait to bare open their souls under oath. All patients need do is ask and their provider will take plenty of time to explain in plain English their actions.”
Why not even try to ask — No just send a subpeona in the mail and see if you can strike gold. Even if the chance is only 5% it sure beats lottery odds.
Do you guys really think patients go to lawyers because they want to? And that charts don’t get changed? How many stories of sanctioned physicians by the medical boards do you have to read before you realize that YES, some of your brethren are negligent, and some are even recklessly negligent?
Have you ever dealt with the insurers who reimburse you? Do you find it a maddening adventure of arcane jargon and transferred calls and misinformation? That’s what dealing with the medical establishment when something has gone wrong, negligence or no negligence. And, as you guys bitch incessantly about, you’re not reimbursed for talking through problems with your patients, which requires you to see more patients, which further tightens your time. So when are these thoughtful, meaningful conversations supposed to occur? You already acknowledge that is a problem.
Anon 9:20 mentions a computer error that puts the wrong name on the chart. How in the heck is the patient supposed to know that? How is the lawyer supposed to know that until you’re deposed or answer discovery? How does that get verified quickly? And how are they supposed to know WHOSE name should be on the chart? It’s not like you’re rushing to volunteer that info.
“Such a system would keep most of the non-meritorious claims from ever going to court, cut down on the 54 percent overhead costs now built into the system, and speed compensation to those who were injured by true malpractice.”
The writer of this letter was doing well until he reached his conclusions – then he got off base.
Since he doesn’t know how those overhead claims are calculated, how is he making that claim? Are insurers not going to have adjusters? Will there not be costs involved with this allegedly impartial screening process?
And how will people who are injured get compensated faster? Are insurers suddenly going to be more eager to write checks?
He should have stuck with the facts. But then, the facts don’t support the claim for changing the system.
“How in the heck is the patient supposed to know that? How is the lawyer supposed to know that until you’re deposed or answer discovery? How does that get verified quickly? And how are they supposed to know WHOSE name should be on the chart? It’s not like you’re rushing to volunteer that info.”
Read the chart
Read the chart
Read the chart
If you don’t know how to read the chart then hire someone who does before you file a lawsuit.
Pray tell, how will reading the chart tell you that the wrong person’s name is on it? Are they just supposed to intuitively know who was supposed to have signed it?
Think about it.
Hello is their anybody in there?
There is a HUGE difference between someone who happened to have had his/her name on a computor generated lab/test whether or not they know the patient (happens all the time) and someone who SAW AND TREATED THE PATIENT. If you bothered to actually READ THE CHART maybe you would tell the difference. If you can’t tell the diffence you shouldn’t be practicing law.
You “think about it”.
“Pray tell, how will reading the chart tell you that the wrong person’s name is on it? Are they just supposed to intuitively know who was supposed to have signed it?”
YES
read the chart
read the chart
read the chart
If it is so mysterious then how do we deal with it every day all day long? Look to see who was consulted, who saw the patient, who wrote orders. Then ask yourself does that have any thing that could possibly related to the claimed negligence. As I said if you don’t know how to do it then hire someone who does.
Ahh, the ever present arrogance of the physician. A beautiful thing.
“Ahh, the ever present arrogance of the physician. A beautiful thing.”
Anon 12:39,
How are Anon 12:06 and 12:25s statements arrogant? The facts are merely being pointed out to you – read the chart. If any statement is arrogant, it’s yours.
Well, well. Figures don’t lie but liars sure can figure.
If one-third of cases aren’t attributable to negligence or malpractice, that’s a pretty expensive, time-consuming and painful way of determining they shouldn’t have been filed in the first place.
If you look at the flip side, however, two-thirds *do* involve error. Two-thirds. 66 percent. More than half.
Guess it’s all in how you spin it, eh?
Kevin, why should trial lawyers (or anyone else) have to see it your way? The world does not revolve around you.
P.S. To the advice that patients should seek an explanation from the physician when there’s a bad outcome: BWAHAHAHAHA! When was the last time *you* made an error in judgment and freely confessed it to the patient?
“Anon 12:39,
How are Anon 12:06 and 12:25s statements arrogant? The facts are merely being pointed out to you – read the chart. If any statement is arrogant, it’s yours.”
Because charts are never falsified. Physicians ALWAYS tell the truth.
“Because charts are never falsified. Physicians ALWAYS tell the truth.”
Please do tell us how many falseified charts you have run across. The fact is (and was drilled into every med student in school) that chart falsification are easy to determine by the proper authorities and if determined to have occurred by defintion the doctor will lose the case…peiod. That is not to say it never happens (excuse the double negative) but only a fool would do it.
PS: I have ALWAYS told the truth to patients. It has something to do with the oath I took. How about you counsler?
Never lied to one. If you’re looking for lists of physicians who might have falsified records, call your insurer – they probably settled the case. In fact, Kevin has posted about a few.
It’s always about spin. That’s really what wins or loses claims or lawsuits. Facts have little to do with it.
We could take some made up complaint right here and one of us present the defense and someone else can represent the prosecution and see where the spin would take us. We should do that one day.
Kevin, lets have a trial!
“I always told the truth to patients.”
Truth can be very much in the eye of the beholder. Did you gloss over key facts? Leave certain questions unanswered? Emphasize minor stuff so the major things might be less likely to get noticed?
We all spin the truth, especially when we’re trying to cover our
backsides.
“It’s always about spin. That’s really what wins or loses claims or lawsuits. Facts have little to do with it.”
What you don’t realize is that there are few objective truths in life. Physicians want to wax poetic about the truth, but they don’t want to establish firm guidelines for treatment – essentially, the “truth” about how to deal with X or Y problem.
Like it is with most people, the “truth” or the definition of “reasonable” is however they see it. Any other interpretation, no matter how truthful or reasonable the other person thinks it is, is “spin”.
You know the old saying, “If it isn’t documented, it didn’t happen.”
IME, when medical records are falsified, it’s usually a sin of omission. It’s a lot easier to shade the truth when the record doesn’t indicate one way or the other what happened. Patients and families can contest the record, of course, especially if they happened to witness the event in question, but at the end of the day they are not high enough in the food chain to be taken seriously.
Signed,
Been there, done that and not going there again
“Physicians want to wax poetic about the truth, but they don’t want to establish firm guidelines for treatment “
What the hell are you talking about? If you bothered to look up any of the medical societies websites you will see a plethora of guidelines for treatment. That stated the human body is not a car or a plane. You can’t expect Y result with X treatment. Please have some idea about what you are talking about before YOU wax poetically about BS.
“Physicians want to wax poetic about the truth, but they don’t want to establish firm guidelines for treatment”
Thats because “firm guidelines” dont hold up in court. Do you have any idea how ridiculously easy it is to find a hired gun expert who boldly lies on the stand and proclaims that the guidelines are worthless?
Rule #1 of malpractice law: if the clinical guidelines dont support your case, pay a hired gun $50k to say that the guidelines are incorrect.
“Do you have any idea how ridiculously easy it is to find a hired gun expert who boldly lies on the stand and proclaims that the guidelines are worthless?”
How easy? Please tell us how easy it is to find an expert who will testify that an established standard of care is NOT the standard of care?
Where do you go, what does it cost, in your experience?
Comments on this entry are closed.