Some are calling “loser pays” a deterrent for bringing frivolous malpractice suits. Here’s one case that may deter future cases.
Related posts:
- Loser pays
- Lawyer on Erb’s Palsy cases: Advantage plaintiff?
- A plaintiff attorney goes bankrupt after winning a malpractice settlement
- More on the $26.5 million cerebral palsy malpractice case
- Sore loser? A plaintiff’s attorney contends that the jury was "brainwashed"
- If health reformers want to emulate Canada and Europe, can we copy their malpractice systems too?
- Poll: Should a doctor blog his medical malpractice trial?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 11 comments }
Most states already have loser pays.
These people were lawyers even; they knew the risks. Whose advice did they take to bring suit ten years after the alleged fact?
If memory serves me correctly, the People’s Republic of Kalifornia requires a CCP Section 998 filing at the time of trial if the underlying non-binding arbitration award is de novoed. A subsequent jury award under the arbitration amount is considered a loss to the plaintiff in the eyes of the court and results in a looser pays situation. I am sure one of our legal eagles can correct me on this if I am wrong.
Potential imposition of costs is rarely much of a deterrent because plaintiffs are so often Life’s little losers even before the verdict is rendered: substance abusers, welfare recipients, decedents’ estates with no assets. In the reported case, plaintiffs apparently have assets, but will avoid actually paying much/anything through the use of bankruptcy protections.
Ob/gyn has a ridiculous statute of limitations on it.
You can have a perfectly healthy baby, perfectly normal life. Then when he turns 17, he gets diagnosed with a mild learning disability. Then of course the parents sue the doc from something that happened 17 years ago. Dont tell me that never happens either, because i’ve seen 4 cases just like that.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Anonymous 8:00 PM –
I absolutely agree. The type of junk claim that you have described is yet another perfect example of the broken nature of our litigation system.
DT35 –
Kind of reminds me of the barebacking neurosurgeon in Florida.
“Then when he turns 17, he gets diagnosed with a mild learning disability. Then of course the parents sue the doc from something that happened 17 years ago. Dont tell me that never happens either, because i’ve seen 4 cases just like that.”
Got a cite to that case and the result? Oh, and that has nothing to do with being an OB. It has to do with the victim being a minor.
I practice in BC and take no pleasure from this at all – these people have had a devastating loss. They really should not have represented themselves , however , as I think this leads to total loss of perspective.
BC Womans is a good hospital , but have been criticised recently for a similar case where a decision was made to induce twins.
Many authorities worldwide do not advocate delivering twins vaginally and there is evidence to support this – as a practicing GP/OB doc for more than a decade , I would NEVER allow my wife to have twins vaginally.
Unfortunately this institution suffers a bit from the west coast granola factor .I think their underlying philosophy is avoid Csections at all costs!
The 1st judge waived the “loser pays” because the physician’s medical records were in disorder causing a longer trial. I think the plaintiffs in this case should pay some, but not all, of the defendants costs.
Criminallopath–
I’m not sure I understood your response. Does “barebacking” mean “without malpractice insurance”? Is your implication that doctors have a moral obligation to carry insurance so plaintiffs can collect from them more easily? If so, should plaintiffs have to post a bond to cover potential costs before filing suit?
Yes. No (it should be a legal requirement to practice). Yes (it does not follow as a conclusion to the affirmative to the previous question but stands as a conclusion in its own right).
Comments on this entry are closed.