A bariatric surgeon takes on malpractice on his own terms:
“To be perfectly blunt, I don’t believe that it’s my responsibility to make my patients rich if there should be an adverse occurrence,” Fallang said. “My responsibility is to take the best medical care of them that I know how.”“No one can do surgery with zero complications, it’s just not physically possible,” he said. “Medical malpractice lawsuits, 95 percent of the time, are about money, they’re not about malpractice.
Related posts:
- Malpractice: Someone gets it
- Going bare
- How the general surgeon shortage affects patients
- Going bare: Filing bankruptcy to avoid malpractice
- Recruiting a surgeon to a rural area, it takes more than money
- Is your surgeon good at video games?
- Lawyers "going bare" in California
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 14 comments }
I wonder if that physician believes it is his responsibility to pay for the medical bills his patients incur when he is negligent? If it’s his responsibility to pay for their lost wages? Their inability to make the mortgage payment, car payment, light bill, all because of his negligence?
He’s right though – it is about money. It takes money to do all those things.
Dear Anon 2:30 :
You have been brainwashed by the sodomite trial lawyers into believing that complications are equivalent to malpractice. All surgeons will occasionally have complications (unless they don’t operate which may occur as in this post). It is indeed all about the money: lottery awards for the lawyers and a pittance for the patients.
The larger issue is that, of course, unless one is seriously advancing the idea that bariatric surgeons are massively more incompetent there is no reason that they should get sued so much more often than general surgeons.
The reality is that poor outcomes lead to lawsuits, not malpractice. Fat patients do worse, ergo more lawsuits, even if the care is the same.
What constitutes malpractice? Surely a question that complicated for sick people undergoing risky procedures is best handled by a team of… oh no, wait, I guess it should be twelve non medical types who no absolutely nothing about anything, being informed by paid “experts”.
Maybe they can get the “caveman lawyer” for the plaintiffs.
My favorite quote : “I’m looking for him not to practice no more,” Wilson said. Love the dounble negative.
Obviously a poor outcome is going to be a requisite for malpractice – otherwise you can’t make the damages requirement.
As for Anonymous 7:38, do you believe this man is incapable of committing malpractice? If not, do you think if he does commit malpractice, he should pay the medical bills to fix the error? The person’s lost wages? Since you seem outraged that it’s about the money, how would you propose the victim pay for things like their mortgage? Apples?
Only one state – Oregon – requires lawyers to carry malpractice insurance.
The California Bar tried to require its members to disclose to clients whether or not they carry malpractice insurance. Seems the membership is strongly against the proposal.
http://tinyurl.com/2bs7ph
Mike, I guess in your way of thinking the guy accused of murder should only have a jury made up of all murderers? After all, aren’t they the only one’s who know his way of thinking and how easy it is to become one? its comical that you think everyone going to trial should only have juries made up of like minded people.
–Anon 6:01,
I think Mike was saying that laypeople have no business deciding what is malpractice and what is a complication, only because they don’t have the years of medical training required to understand the complexities of the human body.
I don’t maybe he’s full of crap and everyone should be able to practice medicine regardless of education.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable that he doesn’t have insurance. It’s his choice and it seems to cull the flow of unmerited lawsuits. If this guy really thinks the man screwed up, which it sounds like he didn’t, then he should persevere with the suit. There’s someone out there willing to take it up, he’ll just have to pay out of pocket.
Even though this surgeon has shielded his assets, i.e. put them all in his wife’s name, in his position I’d be worried about my wages being garnished till retirement to pay this plaintiff.
I can understand why these gastric bypasses are a high litigation risk though. Alot of people that have them done have ridiculous expectations to begin with and have a need for instant gratification. No wonder they can’t handle the risks and realities of surgery.
“I think Mike was saying that laypeople have no business deciding what is malpractice and what is a complication, only because they don’t have the years of medical training required to understand the complexities of the human body.”
Which is silly, unless we’re going to give special courts where the practitioners judge themselves to a whole host of cases, from construction to insurance law.
“Even though this surgeon has shielded his assets, i.e. put them all in his wife’s name, in his position I’d be worried about my wages being garnished till retirement to pay this plaintiff. “
I’d worry more about my wife.
As for culling the flow, how do you know they lacked merit? Quite simply, they don’t. Although I don’t think he should be required to carry insurance, he should have to clearly disclose to his patients that he does not.
No attorney has ever found merit in a claim against an uninsured doc with no readily accessible assets
Actually, attorneys find merit in those cases all the time. There’s just no sense spending the attorney’s money or wasting the client’s time.
Anon 6:01… malpractice is not a capital crime! Its a decision about medical standard of care. A bidy of experts hired by the state to decide such matters, with specialized judges who understand medical concepts, makes mores ense than getting dueling “experts” paid for by each isde to confuse juries who learn medicine from watching “House” and “ER”
Forensic evidence presented by cops and scientists and explanation of comon sense issues about “alibis” and “motives” at murder trials have nothing to do with this and you should know that, thus your analogy is false.
Comments on this entry are closed.