Great roundup with lots more to chew on. Previously mentioned here yesterday. Responding to a commenter here:
A commenter on Kevin MD’s site says that the patient isn’t going to get more than the insurance coverage plus the doctors’ assets, but that’s not necessarily so: the doctors and insurer are now adverse to one another, and the plaintiffs’ attorney can sue the insurer for “bad-faith” failure to settle. Insurers are always potentially on the hook for far more than the policy limits, yet one can readily find academics who argue that jackpot-justice malpractice verdicts are not a true problem because of insurance policy limits.
Related posts:
- My take: PCP influence, stroke, ECGs/MIs, doctor shortage
- Texas malpractice: "A case were politicians actually delivered"
- Banning balace billing is tantamount to single-payer
- $20.5 million in a fat embolism case
- Are juries getting smarter?
- Specialist call in the ER
- Thrombolytics and stroke
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 1 comment }
Some facts in the OL story that might help us understand the award, or at least why the jury is so pissed:
“I honestly don’t know whether liability is appropriate for the use of an “unlicensed physician’s assistant” to do triage, so I’ll defer to the medical experts. Is that “putting profits first” or ensuring that a scarce supply of doctors are reserved for important issues? The insurance company plainly thought that this was a nuisance case. What do doctors think?”
and
Where was the hospital?
and
“[Plaintiffs' attorney Steve] Yerrid told the Tampa newspaper he tried to get the insurance company to settle for the maximum allowed under the policy – $1 million for the doctor and $1 million for the physicians’ group. Instead, he said, the insurance company wanted to settle for $300, offering $100 for Navarro, $100 for his wife and $100 for his 10-year-old son.”
Comments on this entry are closed.