Ted Frank: “Don’t trial lawyers realize they’re shooting themselves in the foot when they claim doctors don’t respond to incentives? After all, if the medical malpractice suits don’t affect doctors’ behavior, why have the suits at all?”
Related posts:
- Cap trial lawyer pay
- Flea’s trial blogging catches a lawyer’s attention
- "The trial lawyer lobby is strong, but ultimately they in are in-the-wrong"
- How about some lawyer reporting?
- Malpractice defense lawyers: Do they lead physicians astray?
- A doctor is sued, and blogs his malpractice trial
- Poll: Should a doctor blog his medical malpractice trial?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 14 comments }
A “dishonest trial lawyer op-ed”
The very definition of a redundant description.
From the article
“if you (a trial lawyer) oppose reform, you have a choice between disingenuous or untenable.”
How about a third choice – BOTH. Of course, trial lawyers would call it a moot argument, in effect choosing NEITHER.
It amuses me to think that an attorney would proffer that doctor’s practices are carefree enough to disregard the Malpractice Monster that is always looming.
“After all, if the medical malpractice suits don’t affect doctors’ behavior, why have the suits at all?”"
The vast majority of med mal lawsuits aren’t intended to change the behavior of physicians. They’re intended to compensate the victim for the loss. Punitives are designed to deter conduct, and they’re almost never a factor in med mal cases.
Ted Frank, Corporate America Lobbyist Extraordinaire, knows this. But he’s lobbying, so anything goes.
Uh, Ted Frank is not a corporate lobbyist. He is a distinguished scholar and a analyst of an industry painfully in need of massive reform.
Frank is addressing one of the endlessly repeated bogus talking points from aforementioned lawyer industry, whenever med mal reform is discussed.
“Ted Frank, Corporate America Lobbyist Extraordinaire, knows this. But he’s lobbying, so anything goes.”
Totally dishonest argumentum ad hominum.
“Punitives are designed to deter conduct, and they’re almost never a factor in med mal cases.”
Disingenuous. Punitive damages are almost always a factor. Just because they are rarely awarded doesn’t mean that they don’t influence the case. They are always part of the demand, and their implicit threat is quite chilling. Punitive damages are not covered by insurance. You can be personally ruined by them.
The goal of every med mal case is not to win an award at trial. Trials are expensive and unpredictable. The goal of the plaintiff attorney is to force a settlement. The punitive damage threat is a very effective tool in their arsenal. I think you know that but are engaging in typical trial lawyer obfuscation.
“Uh, Ted Frank is not a corporate lobbyist. He is a distinguished scholar and a analyst of an industry painfully in need of massive reform.”
You’ve got a pretty low definition of “distinguished scholar.” If that’s the case, Al Gore is a “distinguished scholar” of global warming.
“The punitive damage threat is a very effective tool in their arsenal. I think you know that but are engaging in typical trial lawyer obfuscation.”
You have to be a complete and utter fool to think that insurers are worried about punitive damages in cases where there is simply no evidence of anything other than ordinary negligence.
How many demands have you received as a physician where punitives were mentioned? They’re almost never awarded in med mal, and when they are they involve drunks or drug abusers.
You’re not a fool, are you?
Look in the mirror to see a fool, pal. The insurer don’t care about punitive damages? Of course not. They are excluded, as I stated. I have seen dozens of med mal lawsuits in several states as an expert witness, and I can’t recall a single one that didn’t include a “prayer” for punitive damages. If they are rarely awarded, then why do the attorneys include them Are you capable of understanding a simple argument and responding intelligently, or just name-calling like a child?
” If they are rarely awarded, then why do the attorneys include them “
Because at the beginning of a case, before discovery is commenced, you don’t know all the facts, and so you request all possible types of relief. Doesn’t mean you think you’ll get them, but you don’t want to foreclose the possibility before you know all the facts.
You earlier said you saw it in demand letters, and now you’re seeing it in complaints? Sounds like someone needs to get their story straight. As a defense whore, you should be better at that.
And actually, the insurers do care, because not tendering their limits in a case where the real potential for punitives exists might open them up to a bad faith claim.
You should stick with the profession you’ve chosen. You won’t sound so silly pontificating about it.
That explains the 52 million dollars for the dry cleaning. They wanted to cover all the bases.
What happened in that case? Filed by someone representing themselves, by the way?
Yep. A lawyer.
Frivolous lawsuits for McDonald’s coffee had already been done.
Oh, what happened in that case?
A Korean drycleaner was driven out of business. It was one of those frivolous lawsuits that never happen.
Comments on this entry are closed.