Would tort reform prevent case like this?

Sure it would. It would prevent cases involving most people who don’t have significant economic damage primarily in the form of lost wages.

Your child, for example. Little bastard doesn’t need his sight, arm, leg, ability to reason, anyway.

Three cheers for your insurer, though!

And what is going to keep the rapacious allopaths from bedding the same devil spawn trial lawyers when it comes to the next junk science whiplash case or nonsensical medial meniscus tear case from a rear-end auto accident in which they can cash in by whoring themselves out in the guise of “treating provider?” Real reform needs to work both ways, and not just in protecting the incompetents in the field and devaluing the lives of women, children and the elderly.

But 11:48 does have a point. There are quite a number of doctors who behave like forensic prostitutes, testifying under oath as to facts they either know to be wrong or don’t know anything about at all. What puzzles me is that they so rarely are confronted (legally) with their perjury, which surely must be illegal in the US as it is in the Europe?

It doesn’t matter. The sodomites never win these suicide cases. That’s why psychiatry is such a safe un-sodomized specialty. Now delivery a deformed baby, to a poor mother from the Barrio wih 6 other unwed children, that’s what gets the jury tearful and brings in the big bucks.

12:50

I do not have a “story” to tell. My issue is one of simple objective fact – The fact is that the clinical community espouses a double standard when it comes to junk science in the courtroom. One one hand, they wish to see the John Edwards cerebral palsy cases tossed out as being utterly devoid of scientific merit. Then, on the other hand, they are perfectly content to have the same junk science, in the form of clinical causation testimony, when it serves to benefit them. Do you guys want tort reform en toto or just tort reform to limit your liabilities while protecting your PI cash cows? With all of the whining and crying about financial gain when it comes to patients sueing their providers, perhaps it doesn’t take a freaking genius to realize that financial gain is also a motive when patients show up claiming to have been injured in auto accidents. Until the clinical toolkit develops a mean for lie detection, motivation determination and an actual (gasp) method of scientifically analyzing the claimed history to see if the claimed noxious factor was actually present in the manner and degree present to cause objective (asking the plaintiff where it hurts is not objective nor is relying on questionable effort ROM testing)structural anatomical injury – then the continued presupposition of patient veracity (one wonders why such an a priori assumption goes out the door when it is the same patient sueing the provider) and non-history specific clinical evaluation is contributing to the problem of junk science in the courtroom.

I agree with you more and more for each posting you make (but could you please sign in by some nick or other, e.g. “Amor justitia” or “Donal Duck” – makes it so much easier to discuss.

My honest opinion is that the courts should be far more aggressive towards “expert witnesses” who are obviously twisting the truth (i.e. breaking the eight commandment) and indict them for perjury. That would definitively have a chilling effect on litigation.

I partially agree with the anonymous above. At times I have felt annoyed by having to practice defensive medicine, but after practicing for a few years and seeing what ingrates most of the patients out there are, I just accept defensive medicine, and actually am enjoying it! Like you say, just try to make enough money to live comfortably, and don’t sweat these ingrates…most of the time even if a judgement goes against you your malpractice will cover it, just keep seeing enough of these people so that you can live comfortably…screw them!

To add t the last commenter most doctors I know who are “well-balanced” don’t give a shit about lawsuits, they know it will happen…[sic]

It would be fair to presume that these “most doctors” who expect to have one haven’t had one yet. The cost is much higher than can be measured in dollars or lost time. Take it from someone who has been sued 3 times in 9 years of practice (in Primary care) and hasn’t lost a case. Yes, my premiums are higher, one insurer refused to continue to carry me (and was kind enough to report that it was because of my claims history) and I have lost significant time defending myself. However, those costs are infinitesimal compared to the emotional toll, self-doubt, and crisis of confidence that has resulted.

“omeone who has been sued 3 times in 9 years of practice (in Primary care) and hasn’t lost a case”

Yes, you lost 3 cases. The doctor never “wins” Winning is what happens when you beat a pal at tennis, or you hit the lottery. In malpractice sodomania, the only one who wins is the sniveling lawyers.