Medical whistle-blowers often find themselves targeted by the process they report to (in an effort to intimidate and silence the physician blowing the whistle).

The peer review process assumes that everyone serving on a peer review committee acts in “good faith”. This is an incredibly naive notion – especially given that every hospital everywhere is its own little fiefdom with its own ruling cliques. There is very little uniformity in how discipline is doled out.

Moreover, the medical peer review process enjoys absolute legal immunity . . . which makes it virtually impossible for physicians falsely accused or caught in the economic crosshairs (because they complained about hospital standards or reported another, more powerful, “connected” doctor) to defend themselves. It is a modern-day version of the Salem Witch Hunts.

Current law also makes it impossible for patients suing for malpractice to get information out of the process.

This verdict being upheld sets a precedent that asks for more transparency, accountability and due process in the “policing” of physicians. These things, along with whistle-blower protection, should make it easier, NOT harder to police truly “bad” physicians.

It’s time for our profession to stop hiding from the lawyers – and stop facilitating cover-ups.

Please see this link, this one, this one and this one.

Certainly the economic value of the damages suffered by the plaintiff, who is in his 60’s, could not be very high. The vast majority of the judgment had to have been noneconomic/punitive damages.

So you can’t be sure that a $360 million dollar judgment in this case, which is $1.20 from every person in the USA, is excessive? I don’t believe it.

You couldn’t diagnose anything even if the patient told you what their diagnosis was, that’s why you and your brethren became useless piece of shit lawyers, to second guess those of us stuck in this difficult profession.

I’m unsure how one can determine a verdict is excessive when they know probably less than 1% of the facts. But then, I can’t diagnose malpractice or the lack of it from a newspaper article, either, so that may be unique physician gift.

“Getting an expert far removed from the case to render an opinion is akin to getting an expert witness for your side. The opinion is not without bias.”

A bias, that if it colors the expert’s judgment, cross examination will point out clearly. No one approaches a situation without a bias of some kind.

Of course peer review at any institution will likely consist of your competetors. That is a given.

Getting an expert far removed from the case to render an opinion is akin to getting an expert witness for your side. The opinion is not without bias.

Hope you get it the second time around.

I think the only need here is for you to read the whole article, particularly:

“In early 1998, Dr. Poliner’s competitors began raising “concerns” about
some of Dr. Poliner’s cases, ultimately resulting in a suspension of his cardiac catheterization privileges-effectively denying him the ability to treat his patients or attract new ones, the lawsuit claims. The peer review committee charged with considering the complaints against Dr. Poliner consisted primarily of his competitors.
Later that year, the hospital’s medical board voted to restore Dr. Poliner’s privileges after several nationally known cardiology experts testified that Dr. Poliner’s care of his patients met or exceeded the standard of care, and that his suspension was unwarranted. Despite the return of privileges, the board upheld the original suspension “based on the evidence available to him [Dr. Knochel] at the time.”

Always someone else’s fault isn’t it?

A jury had awarded the doctor $360 million after a 2004 trial, but the judge cut that amount last month.”

And the public wonders why physicians are afraid to police their own? This award certainly appears to be excessive. Hard to fathom and another indicator of the need for legal reform. Ridiculous verdicts like this say it all.