Another jury gets duped

Once again, lawyers contend there a clear link between cerebral palsy:

“It is crystal clear that Dustin would have been a normal, healthy child had he not remained in the environment where he was deprived of oxygen, which the doctor and nurse failed to respond to,” Meyer said.

Only 10 to 20 percent of CP cases are associated with perinatal hypoxia. I guess that’s good enough for the lawyers.

Comments

Okulus
Once again CJD, you prove yourself the ready stalking-horse of the ATLA.
Drinkysr
You miss the point CJD.
Medical literature states: 10-20% of CP is due to perinatal issues.
ATLA states: CP = malpractice.
That is why you see lawyers advertising for CP clients on TV.
Jason Sellers
“In Internet terminology, a troll is often someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls.” – from Wiki
CJD, I’m looking in your direction.
I would like to see comments from you that help bring us all together. Where’s the love? Let’s try to be more moderate from now on and suggest meaningful things. You’re clearly an intelligent fellow, so I expect more from you than the above template post (I know I’ve seen the exact same thing before).
“It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences.”
Dr Samson Isberg
Problem is, the article doesn’t even begin to give the informed reader the slightest clue as to wether the child’s Cerebral palsy is due to negligence or not. All the pertinent facts the reader needs to form his/her own opinion are deleted.
So, when one reads it, one is forced to fall back on the pure statistics; without any more facts being given, there is a 10 % chance that the CP this kid has is due to oxygen deprivation.
As to the risk that this oxygen deprivation – if it occured – could have been prevented, we are completely at a loss to know; but the odds are – no further facts being given -that it is less then 10 %.
So that leaves the statistics again: it is – from this article alone – about one chance in a hundred that the CP is due to negligence.
As to the “plaintiffs expert”, I have myself seen such experts commit perjury without blinking numerous times. And as to the jury, there is a risk that the jury consists of lay people that wouldn’t know cerebral palsy if they had it themselves.
Anirban
Seems like John Edwards , who pocketed millions by parading cerebral-palsy babies before emotional juries , has a bunch of followers . Like to know if they also practice like their master the creepy art of poor baby saying through them to the jury . Is there a chance we can shoot a Brand-bew ‘Exorcist’ the pimping.
lawyersux
This slimeball sodomite, the greatest in the Boston community, pocket 1.5 million dollars for this sodomy, and he didn’t even have to go to trial! Who is paying this lotto win? Most docs only have a 1 million insurance policy.
lawyersux
Kevin: No jury got “duped” here though. They settled before a trial. This sodomite has won so many frivolous, dubious cases the defendant didn’t even have te balls to defend himself.
CJD
“Medical literature states: 10-20% of CP is due to perinatal issues.
ATLA states: CP = malpractice.”
I must have missed that press release. Can you link to it, or are you just making it up, like most of the physician claims on this issue?
I’ll take Making it Up for $100, Alex.
CJD
“I would like to see comments from you that help bring us all together. Where’s the love? Let’s try to be more moderate from now on and suggest meaningful things.”
Jason, I agree with you. However, I think we can agree that Kevin’s post is not intended to bring the love. It’s intended to make a false generalization in a lobbying effort. I responded in kind.
I will be glad to have all the loving, meaningful discussions you wish to have at any time. Like this one we’re having right now.
But forgive me if I don’t treat those who think everyone who disagrees with them is a “sodomite” or a “child molester” so gently.
CJD
“As to the “plaintiffs expert”, I have myself seen such experts commit perjury without blinking numerous times. And as to the jury, there is a risk that the jury consists of lay people that wouldn’t know cerebral palsy if they had it themselves. “
Samson, you’re in Norway, right? When are you observing US malpractice trials?
CJD
I’m curious – how many of you physicians have settled a liability case against an insurer?
Dr Samson Isberg
CJD: You don’t think we have them over here? – Read my blog…
CJD
Your rules of evidence are much different, and you’re not bound by precedent. Just from a brief review of Norwegian civil law it appears your standards for admissable evidence are much lower.
Now, given that you have universal health care, you may even have a different system, an administrative system, to handle those. But again, it does not appear your evidentiary rules are as difficult as ours.
Criminallopath
You got to love it. Clinicians getting a taste of their own junk science. Personally, I would like to see a strict interpretation of Daubert applied (differential diagnosis based on the claims of the litigant are not science regardless of what the manual on admissible expert testimony states)to clinical causation testimony. The “error rate” part would get rid of most of the PI and a substantial portion of the med mal cases.
Drinkysr
Evidence?
I think the TV ads speak for themselves.
Dr Samson Isberg
Criminallopath, you have a valid point, and I agree with you – med-mal cases, personal injury cases – but I also include criminal cases, where “expert witnesses” – usually psychiatrists – regularily perjure themselves with complete impunity in order to get some murderer, rapist or other villain back into circulation. These “expert witnesses” are a disgrace to the medical profession, sure, but they are also a sign of the failure of the judiciary, who don’t want to censure these liars.
medstudent24
CJD,
The problem is that lawyers and “expert” witnesses arent respecting what research has shown about CP. The rate of CP attributable to medical errors is about 10-15%
In light of that research, I would expect CP lawsuits to decline, compared to the previous era in which nothing was really known about how much CP was attributable to medical error.
But alas thats NOT what happened. In fact, a recent study showed that CP lawsuits have INCREASED since the new research came out.
That tells me that real evidence and science is irrelevant in the courtroom. It tells me that lawyers can hire “experts” who will tell the jury anything the lawyer wants them to say.
To be fair, I’m more irritated with lying/misleading “experts” moreso than the lawyers themselves. Its easy to lose objectivity when the lawyer pays you 5 times more money to testify in court than what you get for treating patients.
CJD
Medstudent,
There is a flaw in your statistics. Namely, that you don’t have a starting point. You don’t know what percentage of CP cases result in lawsuits. If it was 1%, an increase might not be out of line at all.
As for expert witnesses, ask the physicians you know if they would testify against a colleague in their town if they knew that malpractice had occurred. Most of the time the answer would be no, and you’ll probably get a large number of “expert witnesses are whores” responses. How much would you charge to be a pariah among your peers even on a case where you strongly believe there is malpractice? To possibly have your insurer drop you for testifying against one of their own?
Also, to be a good witness, you need to have some interpersonal skills as well, you need to be able to relate to the jury and explain things in a way people can understand. That’s a valuable skill, as I’m sure you have encountered many physicians, and for that matter professors, who can’t do that.
lawyersux
medstudent24: I probably don’t need to tell you this, but I highly suggest you don’t start bringing up malpractice issues with the Attendings you work with. It’s enough to try to learn medicine when you’re in school, you don’t need to start dealing with this bullshit until you at least become a resident. One thing I would suggest to you is if you are unsure about specialty choice, do take the malpractice crisis into account and think hard before entering raped specialties like OB-GYN, neurosurgery or Emergency Medicine. The doctors who do tell you this aren’t just whining, they’re trying to give you constructive advice.
chucky
“Ask the physicians you know if they would testify against a colleague in their town if they knew that malpractice had occurred”
CJD, ask all your fellow trial attorneys whether they really think their client is full of shit but think they might get something out of it anyway.
CJD
Chucky,
You, like many of your ilk, for some reason think that insurers are all itching to pay money on any bs claim. In thinking this, you’re only exposing your own ignorance about 1) how insurers work; 2) the economics of practicing law; and 3) how settling cases works.
But, if exposing your ignorance on those subjects is something you enjoy, then by all means carry on.
lawyersux
CJD: As you well know, insurers don’t make the laws in a single state, politicians do. Did the majority of politicians go to Medical school? Did the majority of politicians sell insurance before coming to office? No, Hmm, I wonder what that leaves? And who pays the politicos way into office? You think they vote down tort reform bills because a few lucky “plaintiffs” and their hacks making millions is”the right thing to do” like drunk driving laws are? Lucky for you, in Democratic states, “any BS claim” will still be settled by insurers because they are afraid of the big jackpots. Unfortunately, every time one of these lotto wins occurs the victim is the healthcare system, in more ways then anyone realizes. I gotta go test that 90 year old with a UTI for Q Fever, “just in case”.
CJD
I’m not sure you understand how the legislative process works. Lobbyists write the laws – and who do you think has more lobbyists? Business interests or your state ATLA chapter. It’s not even close.
And while many states did have primarily lawyers in their legislatures at one time, with the advent of term limits, that has changed significantly. And, you’re also assuming that lawyers all are of one mind on tort “reform”. Attorneys who represent personal injury plaintiffs are a small subset of the lawyer community as a whole. There is one insurer in the US that has over 700 FIRMS (not lawyers, but firms) on retainer. How do you think those lawyers feel about “reform”?
I realize the world has to be simplistic for you to grasp it, but it’s not simplistic. People are pretty diverse.
By the way, how many cases have you settled with an insurer in a “Democratic” state? And what constitutes a “Democratic” state? Is it California, with Democrats in Congress and a Republican in the statehouse? Or NY? What about Arkansas, which voted for Bush but has two Democrats in the Senate and a Republican in the statehouse?
chucky
cjd,
As per usual, you don’t answer the question but talk about something else.
Yes, I know how insurance works. Of course they don’t want to pay out money. My insurance company which was started by us and is overseen by us makes NO payout in 95% of claims. That either shows that:
-our lawyers are just better
-the juries just like us
Or could it be that lots of cases are really just BS? Think about it.
CJD
“My insurance company which was started by us and is overseen by us makes NO payout in 95% of claims.”
Depends on how you define claims. Are you talking lawsuits, or just where you are put on notice there might be a problem? I am assuming you’re talking lawsuits because you reference juries and judges, but you may not have even thought about the distinction.
The thing with med mal as opposed to other personal injury claims is that more cases are filed because of the short statute of limitations, and because you’ll not get a peep from any of the physicians involved without a deposition. They won’t talk to you even to tell you they had nothing to do with the case, they were just in the medical records for X reason.
I would love to discuss this in more detail with you, but you’ll need to do a better job of defining your own stats.
chucky
I assume any type of claim that involves the insurer.
http://www.medamericamutual.com/financial.html
CJD
Well, of course the vast majority are going to be dismissed. Why does that surprise you?
That doesn’t have much to do with the lawyers, and even less with juries. Although it is true juries do like physicians.
chucky
“Well, of course the vast majority are going to be dismissed. Why does that surprise you?”
It doesn’t surprise me at all. It just shows that a lot of claims are BS. Why do you have such a mental block with that?
lawyersux
“It doesn’t surprise me at all. It just shows that a lot of claims are BS. Why do you have such a mental block with that?”
Because CJD has never been on the other end of this. He’s never gotten a call being told he’s being sued for a patient he never even met, or for one who went out and overdosed on like 5 pounds of cocaine, then showed up at his ER dead, 2 years later the family wants to know why the ER screwed up and is suing his ass. “That positive cocaine test is just a lab error”.
CJD
“It doesn’t surprise me at all. It just shows that a lot of claims are BS. Why do you have such a mental block with that?”
No, that’s not what it shows at all. Cases are dismissed all the time. That’s what happens when they settle. You dismiss the lawsuit.
Get rid of the short statute of limitations and you’ll have even fewer filed.
CJD
“Because CJD has never been on the other end of this.”
You remain a moron. I was once sued for $2 million.
chucky
“No, that’s not what it shows at all. Cases are dismissed all the time. That’s what happens when they settle. You dismiss the lawsuit.”
You don’t get it blockhead. Only 5% of ALL CASES result in any settlement. We are not talking only about dismissed lawsuits.
“Get rid of the short statute of limitations and you’ll have even fewer filed.”
Another idiotic comment that is self explanatory. Longer statutes would only lead to more lawsuits.