More success of malpractice caps, making practicing medicine in Nevada much more attractive.
Related posts:
- Tort reform helps the uninsured
- Health care in Nevada
- The candidates on tort reform
- The success of tort reform
- An apology bill is debated in Nevada
- Another tort reform success story
- Tort reform working in Texas
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 18 comments }
It’s clearly time for Congress to enact the “No Tort Lawyer Left Behind Act of 2007″ to prevent the grinding poverty I foresee among downtrodden members of The Bar.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Its fascinating to see that plaintiff’s attorneys blame “tainted” or “poisoned” juries for their failure to return verdicts in favor of their clients. The tort feforms that were passed have NO effect on juries–a jury can find someone liable for malpractice whether the cap is 350k or 3 million regardless. All that tort refrom has done is take away the settlement bludgeon that has kept frivolous cases out of the hands of juries.
“For you to get a good, well-qualified physician to review it costs $5,000, or $7,000 or $10,000, and if they say, ‘I reviewed it and I don’t think it rises to medical malpractice,’ you don’t have a case.”
Oh please. Like lawyers stop their case if one “expert” says its not malpractice. John Edwards once hired 33 experts before he finally found one who said the case was malpractice.
Lets not be naive. Lawyers will keep hiring experts until they find one who says it is malpractice.
$10K to review a case? How long does it take to review a case? I would think even the most complicated cases could be reviewed at least for “yes or no” malpractice status in a couple of hours.
Even if it took 20 hours, that’s a pretty good hourly rate.
These slip-and-fall lawyers are like cockroaches scrambling from the dried out carcass.
“John Edwards once hired 33 experts before he finally found one who said the case was malpractice.”
According to. . . .? You?
So do we know how much insurance rates have declined in Nevada as compared to states w/o “reform”? Or how much health care has improved? Or how much defensive medicine has been reduced?
If, as Kevin claims, practicing medicine there is much more attractive, surely we know the answers to these questions. That was the point, wasn’t it?
Or was it just to keep injured people from getting a lawyer and insurers from losing money?
It’s all good, either way.
Unless you’re the one who is injured by a physician’s negligence. But hey, who wants to think about those people once they leave the hospital or die, right?
You’re a doctor, you’re far too important to actually care.
And trial lawyers reap those obscene trial awards because they C-A-R-E.
Which awards are obscene? Given that the bulk of most awards go to the victim’s medical bills – ie. you, it appears that the health care system is the largest beneficiary.
Try again. Maybe with some logic.
Again, have the benefits of “reform” materialized for doctors in the form of lower rates than comparable states w/o reform? Better healthcare for the patients? Less defensive medicine? Cheaper healthcare for the public?
Or was this all just insurer profit protection legislation?
Caps on awards (from the attorney’s perspective) are just like Medicaid payments (from the physician’s perspective). Attorneys can learn to get by on less. If the case is solid, you don’t need all those expensive experts, right? And BMWs are overrated anyway.
These slip-and-fall lawyers are like cockroaches scrambling from the dried out carcass.
“Caps on awards (from the attorney’s perspective) are just like Medicaid payments (from the physician’s perspective). Attorneys can learn to get by on less. If the case is solid, you don’t need all those expensive experts, right? And BMWs are overrated anyway.”
Do you ever think about the victim? Do you ever think about the fact that caps on awards makes it harder for them to pay you, the provider?
Or is it all just some misguided attorney-doctor battle to you? Patient care isn’t something you think about?
Hmmmmm…..you really think any amount of payment for an ER visit is worth a 3 to 5 year lawsuit to me? That’s pretty funny.
“Do you ever think about the fact that caps on awards makes it harder for them to pay you, the provider?”
WHAT??? Obviously a novice.
“Hmmmmm…..you really think any amount of payment for an ER visit is worth a 3 to 5 year lawsuit to me? That’s pretty funny.”
Of course it is. Take away the patients, and that’s all you’re about. And it’s clear you discarded their interests some time ago.
I see all comers regardless of their ability to pay and treat them to the best of my ability. If attorneys cared about these “victims,” they would accept less of the patients’ money to do the right thing. Take away some of your 40% and the “victim” doesn’t matter so much to you anymore. It’s all you are about.
Comments on this entry are closed.