If it is unavoidable then it is not malpractice. One of the biggest misconceptions that I see among doctors is that, simply because of a bad result, they will get sued. Not true, and every attorney who works in this field knows it.

The definition (in NY) is that it must be a departure from the standard of care that was also a substantial cause of injury. Moreover, a mere error of judgment (Drug x or drug y?) is not malpractice.

Which is why 95-98% of inquiries from the public get turned away by those that do this kind of law.

1. A comparison of legal systems would no doubt fill a book. But let me say this: in general, the US has low taxes as compared to other countries. And that means fewer gov’t services. Things that are taken care of in the public sector in other countries are taken care of in the private sector here.

2. I presume that the overwhelming number of judges that believe the system works well is based on the trials that take place in front of them. They really don’t see/hear the calls from injured people that get turned away.

3. It is difficult to say what percentage of doctors over-order due to fears as opposed to overordering because they can bill for it. But given that so few malpractice cases actually make it into suit, compared to the amount of malpractice that actually occurs, I would say that the fear is disproportionate to the reality.

1) What about other countries with specialized health courts/no fault systems, do they have the same problems as the US? (I think France, New Zealand)

2) Why do 91% of judges think the system is functioning well when so many patients who experience malpractice aren’t able to get a lawyer to take their case, and when they do, they don’t get the majority of the money awarded to them?

3) Do you think doctors are over-reacting by over-ordering so many tests/CT scans, and if so, what do you think should be done do calm our fears?

There is nothing in my piece about increasing verdicts. It’s about how various “reform” measures will or won’t work. it is, in other words, about procedure.

Lawyers will not represent those whose cases won’t profit them enough.

This is true. The medical profession enjoys a wide degree of immunity for medical malpractice because cases are so epensive and difficult to bring. If lawyers bring cases that lose money then we can’t pay the staff or the rent and we go bankrupt. Pretty much like every other business.

As to how happy people are with their legal systems, are their some polls you’re relying on for these conclusions? Which countries are you talking about?

How about looking at how every other country in the world handles it. None of them have our level of lawsuit madness, most lack our adversarial system and their people seem perfectly fine with it. Hmm… no, clearly that’s hopeless. Only changes which preserve the uniquely advantageous position of lawyers in our system could possibly work.