Although physicians win the majority of verdicts, countless more are settled before trial. A physician suggests no-fault, worker’s comp-style malpractice:
More than any other issue, malpractice is responsible for physician dissatisfaction. We need to eliminate the corrupt practices that are allowed in many state malpractice systems. Practices such as medical expert testimonies that come at a high price and reinforce the “hired gun” theory, and attorneys’ ability to increase their contingency fees by getting waivers from their clients. But the most corrupt is the offer of compromise or settlement. Many doctors look upon them as legalized forms of extortion.There has got to be a better way of dealing with malpractice. I think the best way would be to have a workers’ compensation type of program that would get needed money to patients quicker and would not destroy doctors in the meantime.
Related posts:
- How malpractice attorneys decide which cases to accept
- Doctors sue their lawyers after a malpractice loss
- Patient information used for extortion
- If health reformers want to emulate Canada and Europe, can we copy their malpractice systems too?
- Tort reform in Texas: Working better than expected
- My take: Malpractice, age management
- When malpractice attorneys turn up dead
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 3 comments }
Given the rampant fraud in the “no-fault” workers compensation systems, I think that such a system would be more of a headache then a help. First, who would fund this system? The plebeians would buck the imposition of any taxes upon them in this regard. Physicians that have seen or participated in the rampant abuse of the workers compensation system should already know that if the money is coming out of their pockets to fund this system then they will quickly be bled dry.
I still opt for asking the trier of fact to enforce the rules regarding expert witness testimony when it comes to clinical testimony. Speculation and conjecture that would send home an expert in any other field following a Kelley-Frye or Daubert hearing is routinely allowed on the clinical side. Enforcing the same standard (this would hurt your colleagues that are in the PI business) would go a long way to raising the bar to the appropriate level that a plaintiff would have to meet in order to prove their case. Defense attorneys, knowing this, would act accordingly.
As always, Mr Criminallopath has a valid point. I am practicing under a no-fault compensation scheme (in Norway), funded by the taxpayer and completely in the hands of lawyers. This scheme is now nothing more than a racket for corrupted lawyers who change sides in the system more often than other people change underwear. As long as the lawyers are sitting on both sides of the system, corruption is the predictable result.
So are physicians now abandoning caps for no fault? It goes hand in hand with universal health care, of course.
Comments on this entry are closed.