keagirl with her thoughts on the matter:
I recently talked to someone who has “gone bare”, and they have posted a sign in their clinic saying that this medical group does NOT carry malpractice insurance. If patients have a problem with that, they will most likely go somewhere else. I’m guessing that this will help weed out patients who may have litiginous intents, but I am also guessing that this would discourage a lot of malpractice lawyers from pursuing a case if they realize the lack of a huge “jackpot” at the end of the rainbow.
Related posts:
- Lawyers "going bare" in California
- A surgeon goes bare and is "judgment proof"
- Going bare: Filing bankruptcy to avoid malpractice
- Texas tort reform a "national success story"
- Malpractice defense lawyers: Do they lead physicians astray?
- Tort reform in Texas: Working better than expected
- Are juries getting smarter?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
And what does it do for the patient who is injured as a result of this physician’s negligence? You know, the one who might need that “jackpot” to cover their ongoing care once they are uninsurable?
Or did the physician think of that?
Only one state in the country, Oregon, requires lawyers to have malpractice insurance.
“No one knows for sure how many California lawyers lack malpractice insurance, but estimates run as high as 20 percent.”
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1150794321703
That’s just one state.
What happens when the client is injured by the lawyers cheating and lying? At least the doctors didn’t intend to commit malpractice. The legal complaints I see in the well-hidden discipline sections of most State Bar web pages, the lawyer fully intended to do the thing that got him disciplined.
I wonder if the lawyers think about that.
I wonder if the lawyers think.
Comments on this entry are closed.