A view from both sides, and why cases are settled:
An offer to settle out of court is often a financial decision that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Barrows call it “buying out the risk.“We know statistically half of these cases will have jury outcomes,” she explains. “We choose not to put some of these cases through the jury process. Once you go to trial, you have committed to the risk of losing, even when perhaps there was no negligence involved.
“Jury members can be emotionally swayed by certain information, and they only see someone suffering regardless of whether there was negligence involved, and they often figure these people deserve insurance money because of their suffering.”
Related posts:
- The choice between malpractice and insurance fraud
- The cost of prevention: Bankruptcy
- Browbeating plaintiffs bringing baseless malpractice lawsuits
- The Hurwitz jury: "I went into this blind and came out wishing I was"
- "You were involved in a malpractice suit last year, weren’t you?"
- How malpractice cases affect physicians emotionally
- The next malpractice burden: Payouts for grief
KevinMD.com on Facebook
Scrubs
{ 8 comments }
“”Jury members can be emotionally swayed by certain information, and they only see someone suffering regardless of whether there was negligence involved, and they often figure these people deserve insurance money because of their suffering.”"
They “often” do? Since when did 1 out of every 4 times constitute often? And that’s assuming all of those plaintiff’s wins are unjustified.
It’s this kind of weak reasoning/multiple assumptions that undercut the tort reformers’ claims.
“The defense costs for an average case approach $100,000,” says Jennifer Barrows, communications director for the Connecticut Hospital Association (CHA). That’s up to but not including trial, she says, “which can tack on another $100,000.”"
This is a false claim, at least according to the insurers. According to the Physicians Insurance Association, in cases which go to verdict, average defense cost is $87,000. When they don’t go to verdict, which is 3/4 of them, it’s $25,000.
And you have to assume that if the insurers are going to err in that statistic, it will be to the high side.
“This is a false claim, at least according to the insurers. According to the Physicians Insurance Association, in cases which go to verdict, average defense cost is $87,000. When they don’t go to verdict, which is 3/4 of them, it’s $25,000.”
I don’t know if the hospital association’s claim IS wrong, based on the fact the it’s possible that it costs more to defend a HOSPITAL than an individual physician.
The $87,000 figure (more recent info suggests it’s closer to $95,000 now) for a trial and $25,000 figure for a non-trial case (75% of which end with no payment to the plaintiff, but which cost the defendant about $25,000 – a lot of money in a case where the physician isn’t determined to have done annything wrong….) are based on defending an INDIVIDUAL physician.
Since hospitals often employ several physicians whom they must defend if many are named in a suit, in addition to the cost of defending the hospital itself (which is often the biggest target, since it has the deepest pockets) it’s POSSIBLE that these figures are accurate.
Anyone out there a hospital administrator who has that data from his or her hospital?
You’re the insurance lobbyist, Donna. Surely you have those figures.
And while you’re right, $25K is a lot of money, without knowing the average premium paid and how often the average physician is sued, it’s difficult to give it any context as to how much it actually is in this discussion. If premiums are $25K a year for 10 years, and I get sued unsuccessfully once, that’s a hell of a return!
Do you really think the PIAA would UNDERSTATE that claim?
I find it highly incredible that 1/2 of these cases go to a jury (and b implication half are settled.) This is not my area of litigation (which is civil rights), but the vast majority of civil cases filed will never get near a jury. Some will be settled, but many will be resolved on motions filed before the court. To ignore this aspect of litigation suggests a gross unfamiliarity with the legal system in this country.
Two questions, if I may, from a person who, being a doctor, is unfamiliar with the subtleties and intricacies of the law:
1) This child died. At 11 y/o he obviously didn’t have anybody economically dependent on him. What – and whom – was the 1.27 million supposed to be compensating?
2. If someone died as a cause of another person’s actions, why was this not a criminal case?
I find it easier to think of tort law like the tv show “Deal or No Deal”. As long as there are big dollar amounts on the board,, people want to play the game. The insurance company, like the banker wants to cut the deal that will result in the overall savings. The possibility of the multimillion dollar jury awards are the big numbers on the board. It is not that there are only a few of the jury awards that is the problem. Remember there are only a few big numbers on the board in the TV show. What do the contestants do, they all go for the big numbers. Add to this that the attorneys get one third at least plus all the trumped up “expenses” that they can come up with. It is always about money, not what is right.
I deleted the comment above.
Please refrain from personal attacks.
Thanks,
Kevin
Comments on this entry are closed.