Medical Malpractice

[Tamsulosin]

Doctors are humans, consequently they all err at some time or other, just like people in other professions.
Unfortunately a medical error tends to be more grave because it applies to human life. Like other posters have mentioned, there has to be clear negligence, and the consequences of importance.EX:if the doctor said you had a bacterial infection as opposed to a viral one, but you were ok in a few days.What loss could you claim for his or her misjudgement?
On the other hand if the surgeon amputated the good leg. Then you have a case.
Malpractice insurance is extremely high and is paid by the doctor.Nowadays when most people have health insurance, the doctor has no way of passing the cost of his malpractice insurance to you, since health insurance
pays according to codes and their own allowance for each code" no matter what the DR charges."
If a person goes for a frivolous suit,now the law allows the doctor to sue the patient back.
And they have done it successfully.
.I do not know the term, but it has a name.So lawyers are mor careful accepting cases.

 

[camerong]

Well I’ve practised medicine so I’ve got an insight that you don’t have, camerong.
And I’ve done plenty of research into the topic, and I plan to do some original research into it once I’ve finished my current project.

And this entitles you to call me a bit naeive? I’d bet I bench press more than you, does that entitle me to call you “a bit of a weakling”?

I repeat, no medical tests show how much pain someone is suffering. Fact. You are the one who is dead wrong. Legislative testimony and medical fact are two separate things.
I could take an X-ray of an osteoarthritic joint, and no one can say how much pain that person is in from that joint. Fact.

I’ll obtain for you the name of the test we had done on our client’s shoulder and back. The doctor acting as our expert witness sure believes it can show the presence of pain. Further, the speaker at the legislative hearing testified that a pain management specialist or perhaps an anesthesiologist (I can’t recall for certain) routinely conducts tests in certain circumstances to ensure that the patient is truly anesthetized, and not merely paralyzed. Among those tests show certain chemical reactions–endocrine, perhaps?–that indicate pain is being experienced. Unless I gravely misunderstood the plain language of the doctor, or unless he was flat out lying (in which case I imagine the opposing doctors would have mentioned something about that), it seems there are, in fact, tests that indicate a patient is experiencing pain. Now, I freely admit I could have misunderstood both the test my firm commissioned, and the testimony at the legislative hearings–but it wasn’t a major point of mine, anyway.

And having practised I know that there are mistakes that aren’t picked up by the patient. I also know there are patients who sue because they don’t understand the natural course of the disease, or don’t like their doctor.

Of course. But the point is, doctors don’t pay fully for their mistakes.

These negligence estimates are largely bogus, because they usually include iatrogenous injury rather than actual negligence.

Apparently the folks at the Annals of Health Law and the Institute of Medicine (those who published the estimates) thought otherwise.

Nevertheless, I think we have both fully fleshed out this topic. Feel free to respond to my points so I don’t steal the last word, but I find your next question much more interesting.

 

[camerong]

A question for camerong and others:
is it moral to sue a doctor simply because you can?

To clarify–are we assuming that the doctor was negligent and that the patient has suffered significant, demonstrable harm?

I can sue whomever I wish, but that does not mean my claim will survive a motion to dismiss (is it still called a demurer in England?)

 

[horselvr]

“As long as the doctor did his best according to the best practices of the day, simply being wrong is not grounds to sue unless it is a truly glaring error that no properly trained doctor would ever make.”

One would think but I just got finished “trying” to sue a vet for his glaring incompetance.

He saw my pet three times per week for 3 weeks. Within that time my pet did not have a bowel movement for 2 weeks—he diagnoses Irritable Bowel Disease—I said WHAT! Did you not hear he has not had a bowel movement in the past 2 weeks? He is firm on his diagnosis and then tells me to force feed him since the poor thing did not want to eat and to keep giving him meds which he switched every two days. I asked for an xray and instead of taking two films (required by law) he takes only one and at the wrong angle. Adament and staunch in his obviously WRONG diagnosis I seek a second opinion and the second vet (within 10 mins of the initial exam) suspects a string in the intestine and confirms that with an xray–at the correct angle I might add. Pet dies on the surgery table.

Guess what? The court in podunk South Carolina tells me I have to get an expert witness $$$$ and that witness must show up in court to testify. Long story short, vet got away with being a nitwit. And the smirk on his face made me want to up chuck.

Save yourself alot of heartache, aggravation, and $$$ and just forget the whole thing. The odds are stacked in the DR’s favor and certainly not stacked in yours. Even if “Standard of Care” was not present and records falsified and second opinion vet was in court with me because she felt this guy used such poor judgement he should have his license yanked. These cases are very difficult to prove even if glaring mistakes are made and if your case is not a big money case NO lawyer will take it. Trust me the bad vets are standing on the lawers shoulders.

The real dilema is how does one bring this sort of glaring incompatence out to warn the public about these quacks when they are protected by the law ? Who protects us?

 

[milkbar]

I am sorry for your loss, horselvr. It’s awful to lose a friend but even worse when it might have been prevented.

Thank you all for your responses. I still feel iffy about this. But when I ask myself why, and go through it all, I believe the doctor was at fault. On the other hand, perhaps if he had diagnosed it properly and treatment had been attempted at that time, things would have turned out badly? I don’t know. I can’t shake the feeling that to sue him would be wrong despite everything, that God would rather I just deal with this.

How do I know the error is undeniable … if it’s in my chart, it’s black and white. I have to go about obtaining all my records still. I see the hand of God in what happened following the misdiagnosis because I was pregnant at the time, and had my VBAC labor not been textbook perfect, I can’t even imagine what might have happened had I needed an emergency c-section with this problem sitting unresolved at the same time. I’m not even sure they would have allowed me to labor at all had the problem been correctly diagnosed. In retrospect I can’t believe he didn’t know what this was and I think what he told me was going on was nonsensical. I just took his word for it because he told me it wasn’t another thing. Yes, the problem might have started when I put him on the wrong train of thought; I was worried it was something else entirely, and so he examined me with that in mind, but still, it might also have been other things, and he did not send me for diagnostics. He gave it an identity and said it wasn’t a problem and moved on. But he gave it the wrong identity and it was a BIG problem. What I went through with the ER and the surgery was the best case scenario. It could all have turned out tragically worse. Thank God I am still here with my children.

I have actually considered just calling him up and talking to him and asking for help directly. But he sees so many people that he can’t keep patients straight without the charts, and it’s been several months since I last had an office visit, so it’s not as if we’re best buddies. So I’m worried he would think I’m trying to … I don’t know what the word is, blackmail him, something. But I really and truly just want the bills gone so I’m where I was before, like all of this never happened.

Somewhere up there someone said malpractice lawyers don’t take cases with damages under $50k? I have yet to consult one because I’m still chewing on this. Am I going to be laughed at for asking about this with a mere four figures’ worth of bills?

 

[Doc_Keele]

To clarify–are we assuming that the doctor was negligent and that the patient has suffered significant, demonstrable harm?

I can sue whomever I wish, but that does not mean my claim will survive a motion to dismiss (is it still called a demurer in England?)

We are assuming nothing.

If someone has been told by a lawyer they have a case where it is likely (for whatever reason) they can get compensation, is it moral to sue that doctor regardless of the individual circumstances?

 

[Doc_Keele]

And this entitles you to call me a bit naeive?

No the naivete is in the your apparently uncritical assessment of the good medical negligence claims do. Naturally having spent a few years studying law you want to believe it’s a force for good. Sometimes it is.

I’ll obtain for you the name of the test we had done on our client’s shoulder and back. The doctor acting as our expert witness sure believes it can show the presence of pain. Further, the speaker at the legislative hearing testified that a pain management specialist or perhaps an anesthesiologist (I can’t recall for certain) routinely conducts tests in certain circumstances to ensure that the patient is truly anesthetized, and not merely paralyzed. Among those tests show certain chemical reactions–endocrine, perhaps?–that indicate pain is being experienced. Unless I gravely misunderstood the plain language of the doctor, or unless he was flat out lying (in which case I imagine the opposing doctors would have mentioned something about that), it seems there are, in fact, tests that indicate a patient is experiencing pain. Now, I freely admit I could have misunderstood both the test my firm commissioned, and the testimony at the legislative hearings–but it wasn’t a major point of mine, anyway

Yes, this is where precise language is important. As a lawyer you should know this. What was my exact statement?
“You cannot show by medical tests how much pain someone is suffering.”
Not “you cannot show by medical tests whether or not someone is suffering pain”.

Of course. But the point is, doctors don’t pay fully for their mistakes

And who will be able to afford healthcare in this brave new world where every trivial mistake gets the lawyer (and possibly the patient if they’re lucky ) compensation?

Apparently the folks at the Annals of Health Law and the Institute of Medicine (those who published the estimates) thought otherwise.

Nevertheless, I think we have both fully fleshed out this topic. Feel free to respond to my points so I don’t steal the last word, but I find your next question much more interesting.

Well I’ve looked at these estimates and they include iatrogenous injury rather than actual negligence:shrug:
Have you actually examined the data thoroughly yourself?
The figures have been debunked in JAMA and elsewhere.

 

[PaulinVA]

This is a good discussion. Always fun to watch doctors and lawyers harangue each other!

In some cases, suing for compensation is the only way that the patient can get the treatment they need. I think the patient’s insurance company sometimes initiates the lawsuit to cover their own losses and to mitigate their exposure.

It is moral to sue for treatment. Absolutely. Negligence versus bad outcome is the problem. Juries make awards for bad outcome out of sympathy. It might not be right, but they do.

For pain and suffering, or for punitive damages, that’s a little different. Once the patient’s care is taken care of, pain and suffering awards should be limited. It shouldn’t be like you hit the lottery, you know.

Before there can be medical malpractice reform, there has to be true discipline structures for medical professionals.

 

[horselvr]

Milkbar we’ll just let them hash this out between themselves and I’ll try to answer your question using my case eventhough it involved an animal and not a human----the same laws apply as all DR and vets are cover under the same statue that protects them from folks like us looking for justice.

Prior to going through the magistrates office I called a lawyer in Columbia and he was very helpful and really hoped I got justice on this after telling my story. He told me that I would have to handle this myself as no lawyer would go the mile for a 4 figure law suit and lawyers that handle cases against malpractice, incompetance, low standard of care know the odds are stacked in the vets favor. After my research I discovered that med Dr’s are similiarly protected.

I would love to be able to tell you that in my findings the courts leans toward joe public if the case is strong—unfortunately they do not. The professional person is protected against what they term “frivilous law suits”. You can look this stuff up yourself, you don’t need to be a lawyer.

Honestly, try to put this behind you because unless you can afford a lawyer, an expert witness, time off work, alot of leg work, mental anguish and emotional strain you will not get far. I feel this is terribe to say but there really is no one to protect us those that can’t afford to fight and this DR can and probably will turn around and sue you because the law allows him to. The quack vet didn’t do this because the last thing he wants is to get this out in the open. Maybe you can lodge a complaint with the med board. Have you looked into his past to see if there are any complaints against him already? This might help you in court but then again—maybe not. It is a **** shoot.

As far as your records with this DR pay close attention to what is written in those records becasue my quack vet changed dates, temp readings, findings to suit him. I learned a very good lesson from all this and that is each and everytime I or one of my pets goes to the DR’s office I get copies of exactly what was done that day making sure all is in order. If xrays were taken I get a copy.

Just because they have DVM or DR or even Squire after their names does not make them good or right. There are quacks in all three of these professions and ya know what—we’d be fired from our jobs if we messed up but they are protected by law.

So very sorry you are going throuhg this.

 

[St_Francis]

I am sorry for your loss, horselvr. It’s awful to lose a friend but even worse when it might have been prevented.

Thank you all for your responses. I still feel iffy about this. But when I ask myself why, and go through it all, I believe the doctor was at fault. On the other hand, perhaps if he had diagnosed it properly and treatment had been attempted at that time, things would have turned out badly? I don’t know. I can’t shake the feeling that to sue him would be wrong despite everything, that God would rather I just deal with this.

How do I know the error is undeniable … if it’s in my chart, it’s black and white. I have to go about obtaining all my records still. I see the hand of God in what happened following the misdiagnosis because I was pregnant at the time, and had my VBAC labor not been textbook perfect, I can’t even imagine what might have happened had I needed an emergency c-section with this problem sitting unresolved at the same time. I’m not even sure they would have allowed me to labor at all had the problem been correctly diagnosed. In retrospect I can’t believe he didn’t know what this was and I think what he told me was going on was nonsensical. I just took his word for it because he told me it wasn’t another thing. Yes, the problem might have started when I put him on the wrong train of thought; I was worried it was something else entirely, and so he examined me with that in mind, but still, it might also have been other things, and he did not send me for diagnostics. He gave it an identity and said it wasn’t a problem and moved on. But he gave it the wrong identity and it was a BIG problem. What I went through with the ER and the surgery was the best case scenario. It could all have turned out tragically worse. Thank God I am still here with my children.

I have actually considered just calling him up and talking to him and asking for help directly. But he sees so many people that he can’t keep patients straight without the charts, and it’s been several months since I last had an office visit, so it’s not as if we’re best buddies. So I’m worried he would think I’m trying to … I don’t know what the word is, blackmail him, something. But I really and truly just want the bills gone so I’m where I was before, like all of this never happened.

Somewhere up there someone said malpractice lawyers don’t take cases with damages under $50k? I have yet to consult one because I’m still chewing on this. Am I going to be laughed at for asking about this with a mere four figures’ worth of bills?

This is the problem: you treatment does not seem to have cost any more than it would have had the original doctor dxed you properly; the problem is that it cost *you *because of the subsequent loss of your insurance. I’m not sure that you would have a case against that doctor legally, because if your insurance situation hadn’t changed, something for which he is not responsible, then the outcome would not have been any different.

 

[Doc_Keele]

This is a good discussion. Always fun to watch doctors and lawyers harangue each other!

In which case I’d have to develop multiple personality disorder so I could harangue “myself” LOL

Of course there are plenty of legitimate claims, I haven’t argued that there aren’t. But there’s plenty of evidence that excessive claims are one of the reasons why healthcare in the US is so expensive.

 

[camerong]

Somewhere up there someone said malpractice lawyers don’t take cases with damages under $50k? I have yet to consult one because I’m still chewing on this. Am I going to be laughed at for asking about this with a mere four figures’ worth of bills?

I said that, and that’s generally true in my area. But that doesn’t mean claims with less potential value aren’t brought. When a client comes in with a case that shows a very real wrong but relatively little potential damages, we will sometimes represent him or her, charging no fee or a reduced fee, especially if the case does not involve a lot of expenses (such as expert witnesses). Even if you lived in my locale I would still urge you to consult an attorney–its free, anyway, and you may not fully understand the nature of your claim or the extent of your damages. For a myriad of reasons, its not a good idea to discuss your potential claim in much detail online, so none of us could give you a good idea about whether you should consult an attorney.

I’m sorry this happened, I hope some of this helps

 

[camerong]

If someone has been told by a lawyer they have a case where it is likely (for whatever reason) they can get compensation, is it moral to sue that doctor regardless of the individual circumstances?

Of course it is not moral in every case. If its is factually true that the doctor made no mistake at all, but for whatever reason it appears by a sufficient standard of proof that the doctor did make a mistake, it would be immoral to bring the case.

If the doctor made a mistake but not a negligent mistake, I would say it is still immoral to bring a suit, If we are held responsible for non-negligent mistakes, the system breaks down. A non-negligent mistake is by definition one that could not be avoided by reasonable care. Morality if viewed by the golden rule (for simplicity) prohibits such suits.

Morality does not prohibit suits when the doctor negligently causes harm, however. For the reasons I stated previously, bringing valid claims benefits everyone in the long run. That is, it seems, at least one way to determine that an action may be moral. And without any strong counter argument that I can think of that bringing valid claims is immoral, I think we can only conclude that it is moral.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Thanks Cameron
Solid answer:thumbsup:

Yes I totally agree that bringing valid claims is moral.

 

[camerong]

Thanks Cameron
Solid answer:thumbsup:

Yes I totally agree that bringing valid claims is moral.

It’s very refreshing to find a point of agreement after a lengthy debate.

 

[milkbar]

This is the problem: you treatment does not seem to have cost any more than it would have had the original doctor dxed you properly; the problem is that it cost *you *because of the subsequent loss of your insurance. I’m not sure that you would have a case against that doctor legally, because if your insurance situation hadn’t changed, something for which he is not responsible, then the outcome would not have been any different.

I hadn’t looked at it quite like that. Although we have insurance for a reason–so we don’t get these massive bills. Right now my only option is private insurance and had I been covered under a private policy when this happened, they would likely have attempted not to cover the whole ordeal because it was absolutely a preexisting condition.

In any case, my husband and I have decided just to leave it alone and deal with it. Suing this doctor does not feel right. But a complaint of some sort, or even just a heads up (Dear sir, I’m not going to sue you but you should have known what this was, so pay attention for future reference) … something along those lines. That’s probably in order. He needs to at least know he made the mistake so he doesn’t make it for someone else. It could have been life-threatening for both me and my baby had anything gone differently. Perhaps all of this happened to help me in my journey toward trusting God.

Thanks for all the insight. This is certainly a complicated issue.

 

[horselvr]

I would advise not putting anything in writing without having a layer review it. To save his rep he may try to turn this around on you.

 

[camerong]

If you don’t want to sue, but still want the doctor to take the issue seriously and ensure that what happened to you doesn’t happen again, you could consider filing a complaint with the agency which licenses doctors in your state, like the Department of Health and Human Services or Licensure Board or some such organization. Just be truthful in anything you report.

 

[Doc_Keele]

If you don’t want to sue, but still want the doctor to take the issue seriously and ensure that what happened to you doesn’t happen again, you could consider filing a complaint with the agency which licenses doctors in your state, like the Department of Health and Human Services or Licensure Board or some such organization. Just be truthful in anything you report.

One big issue I have is with hospitals etc settling out of court, and with patients agreeing to settle out of court, as usually they have to sign non-disclosure agreements. This means that some incompetent doctors have been able to inflict sub-standard practice on more patients that they should have been able to. If the motivation is to stop the same thing happening to other people (which is often the purported aim), then out of court settlements shouldn’t be happening so much.

 

[camerong]

One big issue I have is with hospitals etc settling out of court, and with patients agreeing to settle out of court, as usually they have to sign non-disclosure agreements. This means that some incompetent doctors have been able to inflict sub-standard practice on more patients that they should have been able to. If the motivation is to stop the same thing happening to other people (which is often the purported aim), then out of court settlements shouldn’t be happening so much.

That’s an interesting perspective, and all the more so because I suspect, at least in the states, the movement is away from litigation. A big issue in the paper I wrote is the movement in which doctors, upon identifying that they were negligent, apologize and accept liability for the wrong, and then arrange a fair settlement. A wealth of evidence indicates that this approach–rather than the typical “deny and defend”–improves the satisfaction of both the victims and the doctors while lowering the average cost of payouts. This approach is embodied in apology laws recently enacted in many states (though I would argue laws shielding apologies from their legal weight are not terribly effective at alleviating patient OR doctor misery from the act). Your point is one I haven’t really seen considered by this approach.

Of course, doesn’t it also seem that a doctor providing substandard care could only practice for so long before his hospital or malpractice carrier has made too many medmal payouts? That’s little help to those who are harmed who aren’t able to sue, of course…