If the statute of limitations has not passed, I urge the doctor to bring the bills to a lawyer to see if there is any recourse against all parties, the plaintiff, the plaintiff lawyer. Although the claim will be thrown out, a claim should be made against the judge, his administrative supervisor and his employer, to change unjust case law. To end the self dealt immunity of the little tyrant on the bench. Also file ethics charges against all parties, one at a time, one state at a time, where licensed, once a month, each.

The motivation for shotgun suits is indirectly alluded to in this article, in the section where the innocent physician refuses to give free expert opinion sought for in his depostion.

In any civilized nation with an honest legal system, there would be a Loser Pays for all costs of the litigation.

Loser Pays would bring an instant end to this obvious corruption.

I will second that rule.

They forbid the shotgun, frivolous, meritless naming of innocent parties. The filing of a weak claim is grossly negligent lawyer malpractice. It shows no care was taken whatsoever. It is also negligence per se by its violation of several statutes.

Only your corrupt, biased pro-lawyer rent seeking pals on the bench protect the land pirate from the accountability in these statutes, and extends the self-dealt litigation privilege to the land pirates financing his election campaign.

I suggest another Rule. No lawyer may sit on a bench.

It was channeled to me by John Edwards.

What are you spending 20-40 hours on?

” It is the sentiment, within the medical community, that these cases are largely without merit. However, the “reasonable doubt”, as presented by an emotional appeal to a lay jury, often overcomes the preponderance of medical evidence.”

You just illustrated the very first commenters point. “Reasonable doubt” has nothing to do with a med mal trial. Nor is there any evidence that “emotional appeals” often trick the lay jury in those cases.

The classic med-mal nightmare of a physician is a CP baby. It is the sentiment, within the medical community, that these cases are largely without merit. However, the “reasonable doubt”, as presented by an emotional appeal to a lay jury, often overcomes the preponderance of medical evidence.

Naturally, there are other representative cases, and each specialty has its own. We do not trust the justice system to render justice, as we’ve seen injustice rendered far too often.

I agree with your comments about physician ignorance of legal procedure and about how knowledge can help etc. But you are wrong about one thing. It is personal. It is just business to you, but to the defendant as much as the plaintiff, it is very personal and that personalization of being sued is not remotely irrational or due to ignorance. My personal assets are at risk with every suit. My home is personal. I have a perhaps irrational attatchment to being protected from the elements in a safe neighborhood. It was purchased with years of my labor–my time and the property generated by it is personal as well.

Sure docs say some irrational things when they get excited about malpractice issues–often onesided as hell, but it is silly for attorneys to tell them that “it is just business” and expect them to buy that.

It is like when I go deer hunting. For me it isn’t even business–it is just recreation. For the deer it is very very personal.

BTW, it is sort of reasonable for docs to be ingorant of the legal process. That isn’t their profession, and the profession that they have chosen is very demanding of their available study time.

Would you rather your doctor spent his time becoming an expert on malpractice litigation, or trying to avoid commiting malpractice?