As for the other, maybe I misspoke, because I meant to say either side can request the jury – if no one does, then you get a judge. but usually one side or the other will want the jury.

How are they extortion? If your actions are negligent, why should a patient have to take you to trial to get you to pay?

BTW, in a civil case, either side can request the jury.

What laws in regard to med mal are “extortion” laws?

Most physicians have no control over whether their cases are settled. They give that power to their insurers. Do you suddenly think that insurers who fight you tooth and nail over every nickel of reimbursement are any different from your liability carriers? That they make money by settling poor cases?

So the answer to that question is one. Pretty thin evidence to make your case on. Was it successful, or do you know?

“It is also the source that we have a generation of trial lawyers who have never been in court. “

I have no doubt that’s true with regard to defense lawyers plaintiff’s lawyers in run of the mill PI cases – car wrecks, slip and falls, etc. That is hardly the case with medical malpractice suits however. If for no other reason, because it costs a lot of money to put those cases together and you better be prepared to try them. Do you have any stats specific to them?

“As the commenter is well aware, these cases are not about juries, rather they are about how much it will cost to defend them.”

Nonsense. Because it costs the plaintiff’s lawyer just as much, and if you don’t have a case that’s worth bringing to a jury, why would you spend that money? Do you really think insurers hand over hundreds of thousands because it might cost $20,000 to defend before trial? You must not know much about insurers. Tell me, how many cases have you ever settled with one? Of any kind?

How do I know how insurers work and that you’re full of it? Because I live it, every day.

I also agree that out of court settlements sound like extorsion. What a screwed up legal system we have.

A great idea is to be vocal, lobby, and hopefully get something like medical courts where judges, not runaway juries, make decisions.

How do I know all this, I live it every day.

And this happens how often? What is the actual risk of this happening? Not only you being sued, but losing? If you don’t know, then why would you act in a manner to alleviate risk you can’t quantify?

“These are not the type of cases that go to court but rather attorneys will try to get an out of court settlement. (Many personal injury lawyers have never and never hope to end up infront of a jury.)”

Again, what’s your source of info for that? How many med mal plaintiff’s attorneys, probably the most difficult and expensive plaitniff’s cases to take, are really scared of being in front of a jury? Or are you just making this up as you go along?

“You can’t shift responsibility to patients as attorneys will always argue that they were uninformed of the severeity of the risks.”

Really? How often does that work in court? I assume you know, because surely you wouldn’t be making decisions without knowing the basis for them, would you? And if you don’t use the correct info to come up with the diagnosis for treating that problem, how can patients trust you to diagnose their problems correctly?