Prez To Address Medical Malpractice

[HagiaSophia]

President Bush will make another call for medical malpractice reform on Wednesday, when he travels to Madison County, Illinois – a place where trial lawyers find it relatively easy to win large settlements in what some people consider frivolous lawsuits.

The American Tort Reform Association describes Madison County as the nation’s top “judicial hellhole.”

The president, in a speech to doctors, business leaders and Republican officials, will once again urge Congress to send him a bill limiting damages in medical malpractices cases. He has proposed a cap of $250,000 for pain and suffering (non-economic) damages, and he also favors limits on punitive damages.

President Bush believes that excessive jury awards are diving up malpractice insurance costs for doctors – forcing some of them out of business and making health care more expensive for everyone, he says. Bush campaigned on a promise of tort reform, and his trip to Illinois on Wednesday is an effort to give the issue momentum.

On the other side of the issue are trial lawyers and consumer-rights activists, who accuse President Bush and other tort reformers of trying to take away patients’ legal rights.

The Center for Justice & Democracy of Illinois – a group that opposes tort reform – said it will hold a news conference in Madison County on Wednesday to introduce Illinois residents who have been affected by medical malpractice.

“Survivors will request a face-to-face meeting with President Bush to explain that their cases are not ‘frivolous,’” the press release said.

cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive00501\POL20050104a.html

 

[Lisa_N]

Well there are two sides to this story as well. However the big problem is that we have created “lawsuit lottery” where basically frivolous lawsuits will be filed in hopes that they will be settled quickly as a nuisance. Because the cost of litigation is so high, many times a lawsuit that could be successfully fought in court will be settled because it’s less expensive and takes less time. These cases require hundreds of hours of attorney time and take the doctor away from his patients.

Lawyers are wise to this tactic and use it. We need LOSER PAYS and that would put a stop to the frivolous suits while still protecting the rights of the truly damaged patients and their families.

Lisa N

 

[HagiaSophia]

Lisa N:

Well there are two sides to this story as well. However the big problem is that we have created “lawsuit lottery” where basically frivolous lawsuits will be filed in hopes that they will be settled quickly as a nuisance. Because the cost of litigation is so high, many times a lawsuit that could be successfully fought in court will be settled because it’s less expensive and takes less time. These cases require hundreds of hours of attorney time and take the doctor away from his patients.

Lawyers are wise to this tactic and use it. We need LOSER PAYS and that would put a stop to the frivolous suits while still protecting the rights of the truly damaged patients and their families.

I don’t know that loser pays is the answer either; those seriously impaired, left just about destitute and trying to live on their disability might well be urged by their attorney not to sue as they couldn’t afford the loss.

 

[Lisa_N]

HagiaSophia:

I don’t know that loser pays is the answer either; those seriously impaired, left just about destitute and trying to live on their disability might well be urged by their attorney not to sue as they couldn’t afford the loss.

Well if the case has merit the attorney will take it on contingency. Honestly something must be done to stop these suits. There are parts of this state where there are NO OB’s anymore. They cannot afford malpractice insurance.

Do you have any other suggestions? Because of our freedom to sue for anything at anytime many if not most suits are frivilous.

Lisa N

 

[HagiaSophia]

Lisa N:

Well if the case has merit the attorney will take it on contingency. Honestly something must be done to stop these suits. There are parts of this state where there are NO OB’s anymore. They cannot afford malpractice insurance.

Do you have any other suggestions? Because of our freedom to sue for anything at anytime many if not most suits are frivilous.

Lisa N

Having been through this I can assure you that if you do not settle and insist on going to trial you contingency attoryney will ask for a MINIMUM of $5K for administrative and filing expenses prior to trial.

Someone already diswabled, seriously ill and living t minimum disability simply can not come up with tht up front and certinly could not afford to take the legal costs should they lose.

I don’t know what the answer is - part of the problem is that two professions (medical and legal) have not policed themselves and legal proceedings are treated as just another day by them, while to the litigants it means life or survival literally.

Every time I see Justice for All, I shake my head.

 

[Lisa_N]

HagiaSophia:

Having been through this I can assure you that if you do not settle and insist on going to trial you contingency attoryney will ask for a MINIMUM of $5K for administrative and filing expenses prior to trial.

Someone already diswabled, seriously ill and living t minimum disability simply can not come up with tht up front and certinly could not afford to take the legal costs should they lose.

I don’t know what the answer is - part of the problem is that two professions (medical and legal) have not policed themselves and legal proceedings are treated as just another day by them, while to the litigants it means life or survival literally.

Every time I see Justice for All, I shake my head.

OTOH someone who is TRULY damaged, disabled, debilitated is far more likely to have a legitimate case and more likely to win or receive a settlement. These people do deserve justice and compensation. OTOH they really are not the problem. The problem is the huge expansion in nuisance suits that frankly take every bit as much time to fight as a legitimate suit. If there were some way to triage claims BEFORE they go to a lawyer so that the frivolous suits are not filed, that would help. But the lawyers are frankly putting doctors out of business. So when you have a heart attack can you call your lawyer? We need good doctors and so many are being pushed out, particularly out of high risk specialties like OB (something that Catholics ought to find important) by the lawsuits. Marcus Aurelius was right…

I’ve worked for this group of docs for 18 years. We’ve occasionally been sued. In all cases we know whether the case has merit or not and whether or not to go to trial. If the case has merit we go right to a settlement phase. We only fight the frivolous suits.

Lisa N

 

[watertower]

Sometimes there are more than two sides to every story. I keep wondering why we have so many medical mistakes being made? I’ve heard of some horrible stories. Are the staffs being overworked, improperly trained, ? Seems the ones making the mistakes are making it bad for the rest who do their very best.

I’m not saying I favor one side or the other (or the other), I’m just saying there are many sides, and all of them should be examined without jumping in and assuming one side is all at fault.

Maybe we allow too much insurance, which lets people be negligent without suffering any consequences, or without fixing the underlying problem. Lawyers just take advantage of that big insurance, and you end up with a viscous circle.

 

[chicago]

Lisa N:

Well if the case has merit the attorney will take it on contingency. Honestly something must be done to stop these suits. There are parts of this state where there are NO OB’s anymore. They cannot afford malpractice insurance.

Do you have any other suggestions? Because of our freedom to sue for anything at anytime many if not most suits are frivilous.

Lisa N

If so many suits are frivilious and can be effectively defended, why isn’t the solution to actually begin fighting them rather than settling them? Yes, it may cost more initially, but once plaintiff’s attorney’s realize that they won’t find a free pay day and it is costing them too much time and money, they will be less interested in filing and get the hint.

The responsibility, then, is with the defendants and their insurers if they want to put a stop to it. If they started the ball rolling down the hill themselves by giving in, let them solve it themselves! For if they simply give in, they voluntarily make themselves someone else’s b*itch and shouldn’t complain because that is what they obviously like and prefer. It seems to me that they just don’t want to take responsiblity for themselves, but would prefer that somebody else do it for them. Not surprizing I suppose. For isn’t alleged failure to act responsiby why we have lawsuits in the first place?

The reality is that good personal injury attorneys don’t bother much with such claims and only take good cases which they know that they have a realistic chance at winning if taken to trial. I think what we need is more good lawyers and physicians.

 

[Lisa_N]

watertower:

Sometimes there are more than two sides to every story. I keep wondering why we have so many medical mistakes being made? I’ve heard of some horrible stories. Are the staffs being overworked, improperly trained, ? Seems the ones making the mistakes are making it bad for the rest who do their very best.

I’m not saying I favor one side or the other (or the other), I’m just saying there are many sides, and all of them should be examined without jumping in and assuming one side is all at fault.

Maybe we allow too much insurance, which lets people be negligent without suffering any consequences, or without fixing the underlying problem. Lawyers just take advantage of that big insurance, and you end up with a viscous circle.

Quite honestly, do you have evidence that ‘medical mistakes’ are the major reason for suits? I disagree. If that were the case there would have been far MORE suits in the past when there were far more mistakes. The level of medicine, the oversight, the cross checks in today’s hospitals is so much higher than it was years ago. Nope, the increasing lawsuits are the result of attorneys looking for work. For example our almost VP Jonathan Edwards made himself rich by suing doctors for babies born with C.P. It was junk science. There is now evidence that babies are born with CP because things sometimes don’t go right and nothing to do with the doctor’s errors.

Also many people think that a bad result is grounds for a lawsuit. It is not. A doctor must practice to the level of the standard of care in the area he practices. IOW if you live in east Yapib they don’t expect the doctor to be from the Mayo Clinic. If the doctor practiced to the appropriate standard of care, then it’s not likely he would be succesfully sued even if the patient had complications. For example a friend of my mom’s is grossly obese, diabetic, and a smoker. She had heart surgery and her sternum didn’t heal well. She asked if she could sue for her pain and suffering. I told her that her result, while bad, had more to do with her weight, diabetes and overall poor health than any mistake made by the doctor. Sure enough, she contacted an attorney and he told her the same thing. But many people in this society believe if they have pain, if they have complications, if they have lost some mobility, well someone better pay. And there are enough lawyers who will take even a frivolous case in hopes of an easy settlement.

Believe me if there are bad doctors, I want their licenses pulled. But having worked in this industry for l8 years now, I’ve seen many changes and a great escalation in legal action that has little to do with poor medical care and more to do with attorneys on a fishing expedition.

Lisa N

 

[chicago]

Lisa N:

Quite honestly, do you have evidence that ‘medical mistakes’ are the major reason for suits? I disagree. If that were the case there would have been far MORE suits in the past when there were far more mistakes. The level of medicine, the oversight, the cross checks in today’s hospitals is so much higher than it was years ago. Nope, the increasing lawsuits are the result of attorneys looking for work. For example our almost VP Jonathan Edwards made himself rich by suing doctors for babies born with C.P. It was junk science. There is now evidence that babies are born with CP because things sometimes don’t go right and nothing to do with the doctor’s errors.

Also many people think that a bad result is grounds for a lawsuit. It is not. A doctor must practice to the level of the standard of care in the area he practices. IOW if you live in east Yapib they don’t expect the doctor to be from the Mayo Clinic. If the doctor practiced to the appropriate standard of care, then it’s not likely he would be succesfully sued even if the patient had complications. For example a friend of my mom’s is grossly obese, diabetic, and a smoker. She had heart surgery and her sternum didn’t heal well. She asked if she could sue for her pain and suffering. I told her that her result, while bad, had more to do with her weight, diabetes and overall poor health than any mistake made by the doctor. Sure enough, she contacted an attorney and he told her the same thing. But many people in this society believe if they have pain, if they have complications, if they have lost some mobility, well someone better pay. And there are enough lawyers who will take even a frivolous case in hopes of an easy settlement.

Believe me if there are bad doctors, I want their licenses pulled. But having worked in this industry for l8 years now, I’ve seen many changes and a great escalation in legal action that has little to do with poor medical care and more to do with attorneys on a fishing expedition.

Lisa N

Fair enough, but again, the answer is to effectively defend the cases with good attorneys who can properly educate the juries and show why they ought not to find against a physician who practiced to the appropriate standard of care. If you “settle” for anything less, than don’t blame the plaintiffs - blame yourself.

 

[Lisa_N]

chicago:

Fair enough, but again, the answer is to effectively defend the cases with good attorneys who can properly educate the juries and show why they ought not to find against a physician who practiced to the appropriate standard of care. If you “settle” for anything less, than don’t blame the plaintiffs - blame yourself.

Easier said than done. For one if you have malpractice you subrogate all of your rights to the company. It’s just like auto insurance. Once you have a claim, they take over and decide whether to settle or fight it. The doctor (or driver) has very little say over the case at that point. If the insurance company decides to settle, the doctor may not be able to prevent this unless HE wants to take over the case including all fees and potential liability. If you were willing to do that in the first place, no point in having malpractice insurance.

Second, many of these cases are looked at on an economic basis. So the insurance company, in cosultation with ITS attorneys figure out the cost of litigation. Without “loser pays” we cannot recoup this from the plaintiff. Thus why would any sane person spend tens of thousands on legal fees when the plaintiff will settle for much less? Also the doctor has to consider the amount of time he’ll spend in meetings, depositions, and court. That’s part of the cost as well.

Unfortunately it does become a vicious cycle because attorneys play the odds and hope that an easy settlement will shake out now and then. Plus there are always the really unscrupulous attorneys who will take ANY case and create a paper nightmare with document requests. An ethical attorney will refuse meritless cases but there are always the few who wont…

Lisa N

 

[watertower]

Lisa N:

Quite honestly, do you have evidence that ‘medical mistakes’ are the major reason for suits? Lisa N

Yes… well maybe not so much mistakes as oversights, which are mistakes. One example, my mom went to the emergency room with a bleeding ulcer, and was admitted, treated for the flu, and released. She collapsed a couple of days later at home, and the second time the bleeding was found immediately. No, we didn’t sue, but that was a pretty good oversight, considering she was in the hospital for days and they didn’t find it. We were fortunate, and no, we didn’t sue. But bad things are happening. I’ve heard too many similar stories.

 

[puzzleannie]

I have run into, in the last few days while researching pro-abortion and pro-life sites, a prediction made by posters on both sides, that tort reform and controls on medical malpractice suits, will make it difficult or impossible to prosecute abortion providers for death or injury of women undergoing abortion, and to prosecute drug companies for injury or death caused by abortion drugs. Please comment if you have relevant legal knowledge. Thanks.

 

[chicago]

Lisa N:

Easier said than done. For one if you have malpractice you subrogate all of your rights to the company. It’s just like auto insurance. Once you have a claim, they take over and decide whether to settle or fight it. The doctor (or driver) has very little say over the case at that point. If the insurance company decides to settle, the doctor may not be able to prevent this unless HE wants to take over the case including all fees and potential liability. If you were willing to do that in the first place, no point in having malpractice insurance.

Well, maybe THAT is the solution. Find other ways to deal with self insuring rather than the insurance monopolies. Or, minimally, change the legislation to give the defendant, himself, the rights to decide. Or at least let the doctors take up the problem with the insurance companies (where the real battle is, then) rather than schlepping it off onto the patients. The way things are, so much for patient care and physician responsibility! It’s merely about protecting the insurance company profits. Which is what the trial lawyers have been saying all along.

Second, many of these cases are looked at on an economic basis. So the insurance company, in cosultation with ITS attorneys figure out the cost of litigation. Without “loser pays” we cannot recoup this from the plaintiff. Thus why would any sane person spend tens of thousands on legal fees when the plaintiff will settle for much less?

Because, in the long run, the overall economic benefits of winning at trial will outweigh the initial added costs. They’re taking the easy way out and it’s costing everybody more. Sometimes the good of the whole needs to put put above the good of the individual case.

Also the doctor has to consider the amount of time he’ll spend in meetings, depositions, and court. That’s part of the cost as well.

Too bad. You get sued, you deal with it. You don’t want that problem, don’t get into the business. Frankly, a settlement ought be be seen legally as just as bad of a black mark against you as a verdict and finding against you. Maybe if it were seen as bad for business to have settlements on your permanent record which must be made known to all patients, defendants would fight suits instead of settling too easily just because going through the proper process is seen as too much trouble.

Unfortunately it does become a vicious cycle because attorneys play the odds and hope that an easy settlement will shake out now and then. Plus there are always the really unscrupulous attorneys who will take ANY case and create a paper nightmare with document requests. An ethical attorney will refuse meritless cases but there are always the few who wont…

Lisa N

Well, here I can agree. Though defense attorneys can sometimes be the cause of the paper nightmares, also.

 

[chicago]

puzzleannie:

I have run into, in the last few days while researching pro-abortion and pro-life sites, a prediction made by posters on both sides, that tort reform and controls on medical malpractice suits, will make it difficult or impossible to prosecute abortion providers for death or injury of women undergoing abortion, and to prosecute drug companies for injury or death caused by abortion drugs. Please comment if you have relevant legal knowledge. Thanks.

This all is like a pendulum. Things go too far in one direction, then there is a response which goes too far in the other. Finally, they get politically “corrected” by going to some extreme which supposedly fixes the problem, but really just ends up paralyizing some other important checks and balances, thus enabling other problems and abuses. Eventually the abuses on the other end will become so severe and outrageous and some major scandalous tragedy will occur that will fire up public outrage. Then we’ll swing in the other direction once again.

Or maybe profits will somewhere be cripped. And, as we all know, when money talks, well THAT is when things get done.

It’s the circle of fallible humanity!

 

[mlchance]

Another point to keep in mind: Limiting suits and/or capping settlement amounts will not significantly lower malpractice insurance costs. Insurance companies do not pass the savings along to their customers. They keep the savings in house as profits. Tort reform sounds like a good idea, but it may very well do nothing but increase the insurance companies’ profit margins.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[chicago]

OK, the REAL reason I wanted to revisit this thread was to inform anybody interested that Dr. Mark Macumber will be on WGN radio after 11 P.M. Central time this evening. You can listen online at: wgnradio.com

Dr. Macumber has been garnering much attention locally (and some retribution from insurance companies and hospitals) for publically “going bare” (without insurance) and speaking up on the need to find more creative ways to deal with these problems. He’s stepped out and taken risks for the good of the medical field and his patients. His willingness to go public and promote healthy dialogue on these matters, which goes beyond the usual tired rhetorical polarizations, has been well worthwhile.

Here’s his website:

savemydoc.com/

 

[watertower]

I think Dr. Mark Macumber is on the right track. I was on a jury once, and it was very obvious that the dollar amount of insurance was the only driver. I don’t think lawyers want to spend too much time when there is little money available. I don’t know if NO insurance is the right answer, but he makes sense.

 

[geezerbob]

Just some random questions on some things that might affect malpractice insurance, the availability and cost of medical care, etc.

Are doctors overcompensated? A practice with which I am familiar pays all but one junior doctor in excess of a half million a year (senior partners get way in exess). Taking into consideration all the extra schooling and internships, is this excessive or just fair? And, if compensation is to be limited, how would that be accomplished?

Should judges be given guidance as to what constitutes a frivilous lawsuit and required to enforce penalties against those who bring them?

Should attorneys be severely penalized for bring frivilous suits? “My client is fat because McDonalds sells hamburgers and fries” comes to mind. Or, should attorneys and plaintiffs share in those penalties?

Should advertising by attorneys be restricted or eliminated or otherwise controlled? All such advertising was banned until fairly recently.

Should fees or contingencies received by attorneys be controlled or limited?

Do we simply have too many attorneys out there scratching to make a living? If so, what can be done about it? I think I read that the US has more attorneys per capita than any other country in the world.

If a limit on awards is imposed, how can it be made equitable? Obviously, the death of a young breadwinner with a house full of kids will cause more of a hardship on his survivors than the death of an old geezer like me. Realizing that not every situation could be covered fairly, where would you even start?

Unfortunately, every solution to the malpractice problem, along with lawsuits in general, involve the imposition of restrictions which go against the grain of our free enterprise system. More unfortunate is the greed which will probably make restrictions of some sort a reality in the not too distant future.

 

[Lisa_N]

geezerbob:

Just some random questions on some things that might affect malpractice insurance, the availability and cost of medical care, etc.

Are doctors overcompensated? A practice with which I am familiar pays all but one junior doctor in excess of a half million a year (senior partners get way in exess). Taking into consideration all the extra schooling and internships, is this excessive or just fair? And, if compensation is to be limited, how would that be accomplished?

Bob I work for a specialty clinic. The doctors make a FRACTION of what they made years ago. Compensation IS limited. It’s called managed care. For example our charges have not increased since 1987. We receive less than 40% of what we received for that procedure in l987. Costs have gone up.

Now some people think doctors are overcompensated and maybe some are. But what is more important than your health? Anyone who’s had a life threatening condition has a very different perspective on it. Further the training takes forever and is very expensive yet docs don’t make as much as many other professionals or executives who don’t have near the investment in school and training.

geezerbob:

Should judges be given guidance as to what constitutes a frivilous lawsuit and required to enforce penalties against those who bring them?

Should attorneys be severely penalized for bring frivilous suits? “My client is fat because McDonalds sells hamburgers and fries” comes to mind. Or, should attorneys and plaintiffs share in those penalties?

You’ve hit on something important. In this country anyone can sue for anything. My attorney used to collect ‘junker suits’ including one where a grocery store patron sued the manager of the produce section because he claimed the manager ‘expelled gas in his direction.’ Trust me it’s not so much the LEGITIMATE lawsuits that are bringing up the cost it’s the frivolous lawsuits with attorneys trying to play litigation roulette.

geezerbob:

Should advertising by attorneys be restricted or eliminated or otherwise controlled? All such advertising was banned until fairly recently.

Should fees or contingencies received by attorneys be controlled or limited?

Do we simply have too many attorneys out there scratching to make a living? If so, what can be done about it? I think I read that the US has more attorneys per capita than any other country in the world.

Well from my perspective lawyers ARE a significant problem. There are many more per capita in this country than ANY OTHER. Look around and you don’t see other countries with this many suits. Do they have better docs and hospitals? No. But there aren’t so many attorneys.

I’m not such a proponent of limits on damages as in limiting the incentives to sue. I still like “loser pays” which is what they have in other countries. I believe England has this system and as a result the junker suits are limited.

I think it’s difficult to put a pricetag on a life and no way to fairly limit it. However in disasters such as 9/11 they did come up with formulae that were deemed to be reasonable. FWIW lawyers always sue for MILLIONS even though the damage isnt’ that significant or the person has virtually no earning power. Shoot the one suit I remember is one for an overweight diabetic woman whose incision didn’t heal well (this is a side effect of excess adipose tissue and diabetes). She sued because her wound “smelled bad” during healing and because the healing process was longer than expected. No she didn’t win but the suit lasted FOREVER and cost a fortune. This is the kind of thing that is causing the problem.

Lisa N