A record malpractice verdict against a hospital in Maine. This is despite what the malpractice pre-screening panel said:
The lawyer for CMMC, Chris Nyhan says the hospital is disappointed with the verdict. Nyan said the evidence was presented to a screening panel before the trial and the panel found the hospital and its staff to be in compliance with guidelines.
Related posts:
- A jury ignores findings from a pre-litigation screening panel
- PSA and prostate cancer screening
- Charlie Weis: Malpractice trial reactions
- Sore loser
- Routine screening test recommendations, and how newspapers often get it wrong
- "You were involved in a malpractice suit last year, weren’t you?"
- Will patients accept the new, evidence-based, breast cancer screening guidelines?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 6 comments }
First, your link doesn’t say anything about a malpractice panel.
Second, (assuming you know there was a panel from an unrelated source) panels don’t see witnesses present testimony and get cross-examined, and thus are unable to resolve disputes of fact.
The malpractice panel is mentioned fouth paragraph down in the article by my count (hard to tell sometimes with the formatting).
The screening panel is mandatory in Maine med-mal suits, at least according to this source.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/ph/rpt/2003-R-0871.htm
The rules for direct and cross-examination of witnesses are described.
The inability of fetal monitoring and rapid caesarian sections to make a dent in the incidence of CP is well established. Of course medmal attorney and John Edwards know this well, but choose to ignore the facts in order to cash in on well meaning but dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks juries. I’m glad I stopped doing OB.
I wonder if the malpractice screening panel finding is admissible in court? As in, the jury voted as they did, despite knowing the screening panel finding.
Maybe the screening panel was wrong.
Maybe the jury was wrong.
Comments on this entry are closed.