This scenario happens all the time. Again, patients lose:
What would you do if you’re a neurosurgeon and you understand neurosurgery better than anybody sitting a jury or a trial lawyer and you know this patient desperately needs you? But you know that the outcome (from a particular procedure) is terrible. So are you going to put your practice, your livelihood, your family and everything at risk by accepting this patient? Of course not. You’re going to say, ‘we can’t do anything about this.’
(via Greedy Trial Lawyer, who not surprisingly has a different take on the interview)
Related posts:
- Tort reform: Where the candidates stand
- Texas tort reform
- Tort reform in Oklahoma
- Separating scientific discourse from the public
- John Edwards and tort reform?
- Tort reform: "It does not get any clearer"
- Physician reporting: "Tough, it’s either my career or your death"
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 17 comments }
“So are you going to put your practice, your livelihood, your family and everything at risk by accepting this patient?”
Out of the thousands of neurosurgeons in this country, how many have lost their practice, livelihood, family, and whatever else they have as a result of a mere bad outcome (without actual negligence)?
It’s ironic how physicians like to chastise lawyers for allegedly trying to win trials based solely on emotion, when they use emotional pleas themselves, and ones that clearly have no factual basis.
The nonmonetary losses of merely being named in a suit include pain, suffering, and loss of consortium. Direct costs include those expended on defense attorneys and time lost from work. Massive retaliative defensive medicine and unwillingness to take care of all but the most ordinary of cases are societal costs.
Pain and suffering and loss of consortium? Unnamed Societal costs? And you don’t pay defense attorneys – it’s part of your insurance policies. And given that even a family practitioner averages $145,000 a year, you’re still making probably 4 times what the plaintiff (who may never be able to work again) makes, I’m wondering why we should feel so sorry for you?
Besides, I thought you guys didn’t put any value on soft damages like pain and suffering and loss of consortium? Pain from what? Having to tell the truth under oath? Ohh, the humanity!
“you’re still making probably 4 times what the plaintiff (who may never be able to work again) makes, I’m wondering why we should feel so sorry for you?”
If the Plaintiff who is currently suing me for her “sudden death” in my ER made $145,000 a year, maybe she wouldn’t have died. She could have afforded a higher grade Cocaine then the cheap shit she smoked before she came in and dropped dead. THAT is your typical American lawsuit.
“And given that even a family practitioner averages $145,000 a year, you’re still making probably 4 times what the plaintiff (who may never be able to work again) makes”
You must not be a very good Lawyer if you can’t rip $145,000 a year off the system. If you’ve got good lips you may want to enter a similar, though more regarded (and useful) profession to law and make your 145 K at $20 a blow.
Oh no, I make many times that. You guys have lots of coverage for me to get.
“Oh no, I make many times that. You guys have lots of coverage for me to get.”
Yet another reason you guys are less respected then child sex offenders.
My ENT friend who has never had a suit in 12 years was told that his malpracitice insurance would increase 60K/year if he took ER trauma call. Let’s see….pay 60K for the priviledge of taking care of intoxicated litiginous assholes at 2am. He said no.
I work in an urban ER trauma center yet we do not have ENT or plastic surgery on call. I don’t care if you have the best PPO insurance in the world, if you need those services emergently we transfer you out to the county teaching hospital where students, interns, and first year residents get to hack at your face.
Sure it is rare that a physician recieves a judgement beyond his insurance, but why take the chance. Maybe we would if the playing field were more fair and we could go after the asshole lawyers that bring their frivolous suits. Thaey have made the rules so the bar is low to file med-mal but the bar is much much higher to go after the lawyer for malicious, frivolous lawsuits after they have failed.
Sorry if the truth hurts, but lawyers need to be responsible for suits that are lost or meritless. Pain, suffering, and loss of consortium are indeed evidenced by those being sued, and the losing party needs to pay for all the above damages. I am sure I could find an economist well able to testify on the economic value of the above losses and the future economic losses suffered by being sued wrongfully.
“Sure it is rare that a physician recieves a judgement beyond his insurance, but why take the chance. Maybe we would if the playing field were more fair “
The playing field could not be more tilted in favor of the physician against the patient.
“lawyer for malicious, frivolous lawsuits after they have failed. “
If you would submit to a deposition pre-suit, the lawyer wouldn’t have to file. But how many of you are willing to talk to your patients, much less a lawyer, about your actions or those of your colleagues. And the number of truly malicious med mal suits is only surpassed in rareness by the number of physicians who have gone broke because of a meritless claim.
False. The all inclusive “kitchen sink” name-all-physicians-who-have ever-said-boo-to-the-plaintiff theory of lawsuit abuse, or it’s sister in pharmaceutical mass tort venue shopping cases where the physician is merely a pawn in a larger game of legal chess is the rule, not the exception. If you haven’t worn a white coat, you are not qualified to comment.
For a look at how one tort lawyer spends the windfall profits harvested from corporations and M.D’s alike, look here: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4163094.html
1:02,
“And the number of truly malicious med mal suits is only surpassed in rareness by the number of physicians who have gone broke because of a meritless claim.”
Bullshit, you only win a small percentage BECAUSE they had no merit
“If you would submit to a deposition pre-suit, the lawyer wouldn’t have to file.”
I have been sued 5 times. (All meritlous). In each instance the first I ever heard about the issue was WHEN I WAS HANDED THE LAWSUIT. Once again counselor, you are full of bullshit.
More proof to my belief that Plaintiff’s attorney’s by far do more damage to society then child molestors. (Not that there is any merit to either) It’s just unfortunate no jailhouse justice is meted out to the REAL sodomites.
Although ‘worse than child offender’ is too strong a word but without a proper loser pays system in place it’s gonna be worse. it is hard to believe that no monetory value can be ascribed to a defendent physicians lost time and all that.there are also very few physician countersuits,that has prevailed.So not much hope from the legal system. I just wander what is the message that’s going to the next generation of Med-students ?
Are the physicians really willing to pay the attorney’s fee for the plaintiff when they lose? They don’t now.
And how exactly are physicians going to collect from a malpractice victim who can’t work and will probably be filing bankruptcy on their medical bills if they don’t win anyway?
If juries really do make decisions on emotion, and a significant injury is almost a sure winner regardless of negligence as you guys claim, why would you want loser pays?
OK. Economics 101. Doctors ultimately DO pay the plaintiff’s costs when the doctor loses. The lawyers extract their costs, as they should, from the award. Doctors do not bring the suits.
If a suit is nonmeritorious and is lost by the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s attorney would be responsible for the legal costs of the other party. They could attempt to recover from the plaintiff if the plaintiff was fraudulent, etc. as per their contigency contract. As you can see, attorneys would only take cases that are clearly meritorious and can be won.
Comments on this entry are closed.