Comments on: A surgical resident on the hook for a $23 million malpractice award

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 03:31:00 +0000

Anon 9:29… unless the actions were blatently criminal, then no. An attending is responisble. Until you understand that basic fact of training in the United States, you just have no freaking idea about it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:03:00 +0000

In what way are you “victims”, at least any more than anyone else?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:53:00 +0000

"Perhaps there would be fewer deaths, false claims, and fewer bad decisions if doctors LOST their livelihoods too, in addition to paying fines."

Your anger and disdain are misguided and offensive.

I lost my father at age 12 and an uncle to what might be deemed to be "malpractice" nowadays. I grew up poor and motivated not to live under a bridge. I became the first physician in known family history after putting myself through school. I have very strong feelings about what is and is not malpractice and that over which I have control. I realize I am but a few grains of dust-in-the-wind as judged by the sands of time, not a diamond in the sky. Had I been born almost anywhere else in the world, or 100 years ago, this is the lens through which life would be seen. Never in the history of mankind have the masses of people thought themselves so invaluable and self-important. Much of this misperception is an unfortunate side-effect of the success physicians and scientists have had preventing and treating disease. We are largely the victims of our own success. Thanks a lot.

By: lindar

lindar — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:04:00 +0000

My daughter was a friend of Sarah Hegarty at DSHA High School. This terrible death sticks in my mind as it was the same time my sister Nancy died of breast cancer. You doctors need to remember and reflect upon, that mistakes, bad
decisions, etc. result in death. Sarah Hegarty is dead – no future -no neat profession – no family – she is dead.

Perhaps there would be fewer deaths, false claims, and fewer bad decisions if doctors LOST their livelihoods too, in addition to paying fines.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:29:00 +0000

A resident should NEVER be faulted for malpractice? If she does something on her own, her actions are not her own? Nothing she does can ever fall below the standard of care?

You must be joking.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:55:00 +0000

Anon 7:43.. because residents are not attendings. They are in training. And if you were one, you’d know that essentially a resient should NEVER be faulted for malpractice. Because everything they do is signed off on by attendings. I repeat: a resident should NEVER be at fault. If they were on their own doing things, then the administration is at fault, NOT THE RESIDENT!!!

So that is why it is completely bogus.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:29:00 +0000

"If I did good work in the first place, I would get a couple thousand at the most. Intersting the difference between how the judicial system values the work, both good and bad, vs the market place."

The judicial system doesn't make that valuation, the market does. The client can negotiate a lesser fee if he/she can find someone to do it. Alternatively, the client can hire an attorney to do it on an hourly basis.

You chose to value your services for a few thousand, and you got paid no matter how good or bad a job you did. The clients valued the attorney's services differently. The judicial system had nothing to do with their negotiation.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:27:00 +0000

“My point is that in cases like this, the neglitient party can not pay for the harm that they have done in most cases.”

Which is why they buy insurance. I get your point, but what’s the relevance to the discussion?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:44:00 +0000

Note that while the attorney would then be getting 600,000 for his good work. If I did good work in the first place, I would get a couple thousand at the most. Intersting the difference between how the judicial system values the work, both good and bad, vs the market place.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:37:00 +0000

My point is that in cases like this, the neglitient party can not pay for the harm that they have done in most cases. Perhaps in this case, the real defendant is actually the employer, which as a medical school has deep pockets and reinsurrance and so it can get paid.

In most cases, it would matter one bit whether I or a jury think this is worth 14 million and whether I or a jury thinks that should be paid or not--it wouldn't be there.

I have a mil of insurance and about 1/2 mil of net worth. If I were to be found responsible for that sort of injury and striped of every asset down to my briefs, the attorny would get 600,000, the medical creditors would grab the remaining 900,000. The patient would get nothing and would still be medically indigent and bankrupt by 1.6 mil. I would just go live with my oldest child, babysit the grandkids, and fish every day