Comments on: Physician malpractice deposition observations http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/06/physician-malpractice-deposition-observations.html medical blog Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:50:13 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: susanh http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/06/physician-malpractice-deposition-observations.html/comment-page-1#comment-94977 susanh Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:31:30 +0000 http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/?p=37861#comment-94977 President is speaking now, insisting healthcare must be reformed, and his silence on tort reform is deafening. The NRA succeeds in its mission because it is single minded in purpose: give us what we want and we will vote for you. We don't care how you vote on abortion or healthcare or endangered owls, but if you vote against guns, we will make sure you are never again elected dogcatcher. Can't the one body of professionals with the power to literally cripple the nation if it so chose to strike find one single voice, one single request? Simply ask that the legal profession be required to operate under the same risk/reward liability as medicals; with similar potential (unlimited) damages, similar governmment scrutiny and price-fixing... No p.i. lawyer has walked an inch in a doc's mocs. Make it happen, then see if things change. President is speaking now, insisting healthcare must be reformed, and his silence on tort reform is deafening.

The NRA succeeds in its mission because it is single minded in purpose: give us what we want and we will vote for you. We don’t care how you vote on abortion or healthcare or endangered owls, but if you vote against guns, we will make sure you are never again elected dogcatcher.

Can’t the one body of professionals with the power to literally cripple the nation if it so chose to strike find one single voice, one single request?

Simply ask that the legal profession be required to operate under the same risk/reward liability as medicals; with similar potential (unlimited) damages, similar governmment scrutiny and price-fixing…

No p.i. lawyer has walked an inch in a doc’s mocs. Make it happen, then see if things change.

]]> By: Supremacy Claus http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/06/physician-malpractice-deposition-observations.html/comment-page-1#comment-94679 Supremacy Claus Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:06:33 +0000 http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/?p=37861#comment-94679 Mr. Meyers: You sue hospitals then berate them for the cover up. Every medical error is the fault of the lawyer. The hospital has a duty to all other patients to survive. A thorough investigation would be used as an admission against interest, an exception to the hearsay rule in the legal system that is totally rigged in favor of lawyer rent seeking. Medical errors will end with continual improvement methods, and when the lawyer has been stopped. Mr. Meyers: You sue hospitals then berate them for the cover up.

Every medical error is the fault of the lawyer. The hospital has a duty to all other patients to survive. A thorough investigation would be used as an admission against interest, an exception to the hearsay rule in the legal system that is totally rigged in favor of lawyer rent seeking.

Medical errors will end with continual improvement methods, and when the lawyer has been stopped.

]]> By: Supremacy Claus http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/06/physician-malpractice-deposition-observations.html/comment-page-1#comment-94678 Supremacy Claus Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:02:56 +0000 http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/?p=37861#comment-94678 Not only should the lawyer have a duty to the adverse third party in a standard of care, he does in many statutes. These duties are per se (automatic malpractice if violation of the rule is proven). Here is a partial list. I got tired of going through textbooks. http://supremacyclaus.blogspot.com/2007/05/ending-lawyer-immunity-from-legal.html Not only should the lawyer have a duty to the adverse third party in a standard of care, he does in many statutes. These duties are per se (automatic malpractice if violation of the rule is proven).

Here is a partial list. I got tired of going through textbooks.

http://supremacyclaus.blogspot.com/2007/05/ending-lawyer-immunity-from-legal.html

]]> By: jimeyers http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/06/physician-malpractice-deposition-observations.html/comment-page-1#comment-94633 jimeyers Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:06:44 +0000 http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/?p=37861#comment-94633 Mr Claus, Of cases "filed" I have failed to succeed for my clients 6 times in 35 years of practice doing only this work. My personal experience is irrellevant. The hundreds of victims I have represented are a small proportion even collectively of the patients harmed by careless medical and hospital practice annually in my state or nationally. I needn't provide examples because all of the physicians who read this blog have been witness to tragic outcomes resulting from careless medical care. My clients have never been offerred the slightest assistance by those who harmed them prior to my invovlement. Self regulation has failed miserably. Outside of the investigative tools available to a plaintiff's lawyer in such cases the hospital staff is helpless to get to the bottom of a problem. The focus is to often on the personal feelings of thoose involved or politics. We should all be on the same team. Good medical practice is what we all want. Hospital sylstems have taken the power from most physicians. The PCP is helpless asnd facing a continued decline in revenue. Specialists regretably have to focus a wasteful percentage of t6heir time, noot responding to lkawsuit, but dealing with a maze of forms and insurance carriers constantly bundling this and that. I remember the family doctor of my childhood. His hands were strong and cool. However worried my parents, they came away from a visit with doctor "T" feeling that everything was going to be ok. When the unexpected occured, explanations assurances and help was always present. That was then and this is now. We are all responsible for where we are and hopefully with candor and undertstanding we can all find a better place. Mr Claus,
Of cases “filed” I have failed to succeed for my clients 6 times in 35 years of practice doing only this work. My personal experience is irrellevant. The hundreds of victims I have represented are a small proportion even collectively of the patients harmed by careless medical and hospital practice annually in my state or nationally. I needn’t provide examples because all of the physicians who read this blog have been witness to tragic outcomes resulting from careless medical care. My clients have never been offerred the slightest assistance by those who harmed them prior to my invovlement. Self regulation has failed miserably. Outside of the investigative tools available to a plaintiff’s lawyer in such cases the hospital staff is helpless to get to the bottom of a problem. The focus is to often on the personal feelings of thoose involved or politics. We should all be on the same team. Good medical practice is what we all want. Hospital sylstems have taken the power from most physicians. The PCP is helpless asnd facing a continued decline in revenue. Specialists regretably have to focus a wasteful percentage of t6heir time, noot responding to lkawsuit, but dealing with a maze of forms and insurance carriers constantly bundling this and that.

I remember the family doctor of my childhood. His hands were strong and cool. However worried my parents, they came away from a visit with doctor “T” feeling that everything was going to be ok. When the unexpected occured, explanations assurances and help was always present.

That was then and this is now. We are all responsible for where we are and hopefully with candor and undertstanding we can all find a better place.

]]> By: Matt http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/06/physician-malpractice-deposition-observations.html/comment-page-1#comment-94586 Matt Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:30:19 +0000 http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/?p=37861#comment-94586 I'm going to indulge you - once. I am not going any further because I expect it will degenerate into a rant about Bill Clinton, 9/11, New World Order, etc. " No one may judge the lawyer but another lawyer." This is incorrect. A jury in a legal malpractice case will be the judge of all fact questions. Same as in a medical malpractice case. "The adverse third party may not sue the lawyer for legal malpractice for the filing of a weak case. The privity obstacle precludes that claim." The lawyer has no duty to the adverse third party. You can't establish a claim for negligence where no duty exists. There are, however, sanctions for filing truly frivolous claims. Your problem is you use the phrase "weak" case, which will presumably be defined by . . . . you. Well, everyone in a lawsuit thinks the other side has a "weak" case. " He must prove damages, deviation from professional standards, a legal causation link between the two." Same as a medical malpractice case. "he must prove that he could have collected his verdict from the original defendant." This is incorrect. You need not prove you could have collected in a legal malpractice case. "The lawyer has no obligation to carry malpractice insurance, in contrast to the lawyer forced purchase of insurance imposed on the doctor" Many states, and maybe all, do not require physicians OR lawyers to carry insurance. Or a number of other professions. "If the lawyer offends a member of the hierarchy, for example, by being late to a conference by 20 minutes, the lawyer hierarchy will destroy the lawyer, with no recourse in a court." What profession does have a penalty for being 20 minutes late? Lawyers are at least subject to penalty from the court. Clearly, you were on the losing side of a case at some point, and couldn't get anywhere with your legal malpractice claim, and maybe even had a lawyer show up late during the process. And you're now using your experience to extrapolate it into a larger policy you want to pursue. I commend you for your zeal, but several of your facts are incorrect. Nevertheless, I have now answered your request for response, and I wish you the best of luck. I’m going to indulge you – once. I am not going any further because I expect it will degenerate into a rant about Bill Clinton, 9/11, New World Order, etc.

” No one may judge the lawyer but another lawyer.”

This is incorrect. A jury in a legal malpractice case will be the judge of all fact questions. Same as in a medical malpractice case.

“The adverse third party may not sue the lawyer for legal malpractice for the filing of a weak case. The privity obstacle precludes that claim.”

The lawyer has no duty to the adverse third party. You can’t establish a claim for negligence where no duty exists. There are, however, sanctions for filing truly frivolous claims. Your problem is you use the phrase “weak” case, which will presumably be defined by . . . . you. Well, everyone in a lawsuit thinks the other side has a “weak” case.

” He must prove damages, deviation from professional standards, a legal causation link between the two.”

Same as a medical malpractice case.

“he must prove that he could have collected his verdict from the original defendant.”

This is incorrect. You need not prove you could have collected in a legal malpractice case.

“The lawyer has no obligation to carry malpractice insurance, in contrast to the lawyer forced purchase of insurance imposed on the doctor”

Many states, and maybe all, do not require physicians OR lawyers to carry insurance. Or a number of other professions.

“If the lawyer offends a member of the hierarchy, for example, by being late to a conference by 20 minutes, the lawyer hierarchy will destroy the lawyer, with no recourse in a court.”

What profession does have a penalty for being 20 minutes late? Lawyers are at least subject to penalty from the court.

Clearly, you were on the losing side of a case at some point, and couldn’t get anywhere with your legal malpractice claim, and maybe even had a lawyer show up late during the process. And you’re now using your experience to extrapolate it into a larger policy you want to pursue. I commend you for your zeal, but several of your facts are incorrect. Nevertheless, I have now answered your request for response, and I wish you the best of luck.

]]> By: Supremacy Claus http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/06/physician-malpractice-deposition-observations.html/comment-page-1#comment-94521 Supremacy Claus Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:47:57 +0000 http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/?p=37861#comment-94521 You were the one who brought up the fox guarding the chicken. Those with filthy hands should not be pointing fingers. The lawyer judges, regulates, and condemns all others. No one may judge the lawyer but another lawyer. The adverse third party may not sue the lawyer for legal malpractice for the filing of a weak case. The privity obstacle precludes that claim. No one else has had a privity obstacle to tort liability for 100 years. This is in the face of dozens of duties of the lawyer to the adverse third party enumerated in the Rules of Conduct, the Rules of Evidence, the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Criminal Evidence, and countless appellate decisions. Even the client of the lawyer, who has privity, will find it impossible to successfully sue for damages from the carelessness of his lawyer. He must prove damages, deviation from professional standards, a legal causation link between the two. Once proven, he must then prove that he would have won the original trial that he lost. Once he has proven the negligence, the favorable verdict in the original matter, then, he must prove that he could have collected his verdict from the original defendant. He must get the original defendant's finances. The lawyer has no obligation to carry malpractice insurance, in contrast to the lawyer forced purchase of insurance imposed on the doctor. The lawyer profession is totally irresponsible to anyone but its own hierarchy. Victims of lawyer carelessness have impossible obstacles to climb. There is no public accountability for the lawyer. If the lawyer offends a member of the hierarchy, for example, by being late to a conference by 20 minutes, the lawyer hierarchy will destroy the lawyer, with no recourse in a court. The doctor should be aware of this sweet scheme of self-dealt unlawful immunities, airtight preclusion of any recourse against just about any lawyer, even his own, and the total irresponsible lawyer profession. You were the one who brought up the fox guarding the chicken. Those with filthy hands should not be pointing fingers.

The lawyer judges, regulates, and condemns all others. No one may judge the lawyer but another lawyer. The adverse third party may not sue the lawyer for legal malpractice for the filing of a weak case. The privity obstacle precludes that claim. No one else has had a privity obstacle to tort liability for 100 years. This is in the face of dozens of duties of the lawyer to the adverse third party enumerated in the Rules of Conduct, the Rules of Evidence, the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Criminal Evidence, and countless appellate decisions.

Even the client of the lawyer, who has privity, will find it impossible to successfully sue for damages from the carelessness of his lawyer. He must prove damages, deviation from professional standards, a legal causation link between the two. Once proven, he must then prove that he would have won the original trial that he lost.

Once he has proven the negligence, the favorable verdict in the original matter, then, he must prove that he could have collected his verdict from the original defendant. He must get the original defendant’s finances. The lawyer has no obligation to carry malpractice insurance, in contrast to the lawyer forced purchase of insurance imposed on the doctor. The lawyer profession is totally irresponsible to anyone but its own hierarchy. Victims of lawyer carelessness have impossible obstacles to climb.

There is no public accountability for the lawyer. If the lawyer offends a member of the hierarchy, for example, by being late to a conference by 20 minutes, the lawyer hierarchy will destroy the lawyer, with no recourse in a court.

The doctor should be aware of this sweet scheme of self-dealt unlawful immunities, airtight preclusion of any recourse against just about any lawyer, even his own, and the total irresponsible lawyer profession.

]]> By: Matt http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/06/physician-malpractice-deposition-observations.html/comment-page-1#comment-94519 Matt Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:42:23 +0000 http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/?p=37861#comment-94519 I'm not really sure 1) I understand your question; or 2) that this is the forum to get into grinding your particular axe, given how it's unrelated to medicine. I’m not really sure 1) I understand your question; or 2) that this is the forum to get into grinding your particular axe, given how it’s unrelated to medicine.

]]> By: Supremacy Claus http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/06/physician-malpractice-deposition-observations.html/comment-page-1#comment-94518 Supremacy Claus Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:05:44 +0000 http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/?p=37861#comment-94518 Matt: Explain to me in facts, policy, or philosophy. Why is the lawyer profession the only one that regulates itself, and has granted itself virtually total immunity from accountability to anyone but its hierarchy? I am having trouble grasping that concept in the face of the total failure of every self-stated goal of every subject in the law. Matt: Explain to me in facts, policy, or philosophy. Why is the lawyer profession the only one that regulates itself, and has granted itself virtually total immunity from accountability to anyone but its hierarchy? I am having trouble grasping that concept in the face of the total failure of every self-stated goal of every subject in the law.

]]> By: Matt http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/06/physician-malpractice-deposition-observations.html/comment-page-1#comment-94434 Matt Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:06:08 +0000 http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/?p=37861#comment-94434 Actually that's the very definition of the fox guarding the henhouse. Actually that’s the very definition of the fox guarding the henhouse.

]]> By: GGFreeman http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/06/physician-malpractice-deposition-observations.html/comment-page-1#comment-94357 GGFreeman Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:47:30 +0000 http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/?p=37861#comment-94357 Indiana has it right. They have a special grand jury of physicians that review all Medmal cases BEFORE they are even ALLOWED to be filed. How is this not possible in all 50 states? And this isn't fox meet's henhouse, it's physician examine thyself and then cast stones where true malpractice has taken place. If just that was in place OR it was made illegal for lawyers to charge % fees for cases settled out of court (just a flat fee based on costs to litigate) ... that would eliminate MOST lawsuits where the physician wasn't actually negligent. Indiana has it right. They have a special grand jury of physicians that review all Medmal cases BEFORE they are even ALLOWED to be filed. How is this not possible in all 50 states?

And this isn’t fox meet’s henhouse, it’s physician examine thyself and then cast stones where true malpractice has taken place.

If just that was in place OR it was made illegal for lawyers to charge % fees for cases settled out of court (just a flat fee based on costs to litigate) … that would eliminate MOST lawsuits where the physician wasn’t actually negligent.

]]>