Comments on: Understanding the malpractice crisis

By: John

John — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:35:14 +0000

Come on now. Doctor’s are in the business of caring for patients
and doing all they can to preserve life. When they do wrongful acts they should be punished for it. Wrongs done to patients hurting “society” who the heck you fooling? It is obvious you are protecting the wrongs to continue, and NOT fixing the problem. AMA and insurance companies are behind the scemes to deceive the patients, and rip off the public. Patients have a right to public health care and proper treatment. When that is not done, get that doctor out of town! Fine him to the highest. If they murder a patient (which is wrongful death) they are criminals and should be punished as such to the highest extent of the law. AMA should be taken to court on a class action suit for promoting doctors to keep preforming and protecting doctors. So the lousy service to society continues. Soceity is harmed ole’ man by frauduate doctors and AMA and the insurance companies worried about their pocket books, and not the patient who trusted the doctor to live up to his oath to treat and preserve human life.
John

By: Carol

Carol — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:14:16 +0000

If states and medical socities would sanction these recidivist doctors who are the major culprits, if people would remember that the news covers the newsworthy, not the commonplace, which is that the majority of cases, regardless of the proof, are lost by plaintiffs, the amount of malpractice would go down.
Thank you

By: Anthony Schwartz, D.O.

Anthony Schwartz, D.O. — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:21:13 +0000

I agree that all four elements of California’s Tort Reform law are necessary for true reform. In Michigan we only have the cap on non-economic costs. As a result malpractice premiums are being raised 100% for physicians in Wayne County, MI (Detoit)

By: Aporkalypse

Aporkalypse — Sat, 10 Jul 2004 08:31:12 +0000

As an oncologist, I don’t think I could ever deny a patient treatment, even if they were a trial lawyer with multiple frivolous suits in my county. That said, the rule is there for many reasons – obviously a physician should be able to “fire” a patient, every MD has had to stop seeing a drug-seeker at some point.

By: arf

arf — Fri, 18 Jun 2004 19:38:19 +0000

Great article dd.

Thanks. I’ll be putting that article to good use.

By: dd

dd — Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:01:37 +0000

If anyone really wants to understand the medical malpractice crisis fully, I strongly recommend reading the following article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer of 6/14/04, which documents the courtroom saga of the acrimonious breakup of one of Cleveland’s most successful and feared malpractice attorneys. The most interesting thing about the article is the amount of money made doing pretty much exclusively medical malpractice litigation which became public during the courtroom saga. The link is as follows:

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1087551327100070.xml

If anyone still has more questions, save ‘em.

By: arf

arf — Fri, 18 Jun 2004 06:31:37 +0000

As said earlier, it’s not about docs refusing care to lawyers, it’s about care to the community.

As in, no doctors to provide healthcare for the community.

It’s also about cost. Did you all see the article in AMA-News about the 125-doc Connecticut group that is adding a $500 malpractice surcharge to their insurance?

They may well run into problems with their current contracts over that (not that I know anything about their insurance contracts), but contracts can be re-negotiated. And I bet they will.

The government pays for a lot of healthcare. They government also runs a lot of healthcare institutions.

Government entities will almost invariably create laws that shield themselves from the same liability mess they create for us. I know that’s true in my state, where the medical school and hospital has TOTAL liability limited to $200,000.

Not pain and suffering.

TOTAL liability. Economic AND noneconomic.

It will be a nice way to herd all the doctors into government-run schemes. Then the government limits their liability to virtually nothing.

I’ll leave it to your imagination wht would happen next.

By: arf

arf — Fri, 18 Jun 2004 06:04:22 +0000

Here’s the report of the Florida Task Force. This study was comissioned by Governor Jeb Bush, in response to the malpractice problems they have had out there.

They came to a similar conclusion as the GAO report. Among other recommendations, the Florida report made the specific recommendation of a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages.

http://www.doh.state.fl.us/myflorida/DOH-Large-Final%20Book.pdf

The authors included a number of lawyers in the State of Florida, and also included Donna Shalala, former head of HHS under Clinton.

Maybe DB can put these references in a FAQ file for easier reference in the future.

By: m

Fri, 18 Jun 2004 03:42:42 +0000

There is no doubt that people will have their differing opinions.
For everyone who appreciates the huge flaws of the current medical justice system there are others such as Mr. Simon who champion it.

opinions differ as well in state and national legislatures.

Despite endless years of debate little has changed.

So… doc’s will continue to order Billions of dollars of tests to CYA, practice in low risk modes, and avoid high risk low reward situations.

seems like medical schools should have students spend a 2 month rotation on the legal realities of medicine sometime in the third year so they can plan their carreers with open eyes . Also prosepective medical school applicants should have a mandatory briefing (perhaps an online web tutorial ) on the legal pitfalls of being an MD prior the moment that they plan to embark on the almost decade long journey it takes to be a practicing physician.

with this informed view I think doc’s can better function in a dysfunctional climate (that is unlikely to change)

By: RGL

RGL — Fri, 18 Jun 2004 03:12:09 +0000

This report is a cogent summary of what is wrong with the tort system and why we need to drastically revamp it. I agree California, with its MICRA, is on the leading edge of what other states need to do.

As for the figures cited, let me complete the tally sheet.
Since 70% of these lawsuits are dismissed with no payments, that leaves 30% that go to trial, 80% of which are won by physicians. This means the vast majority of suits filed are frivolous and meritless.

The costs of defending frivolous suits that reach the court average between $40 to $50,000, which makes expenses by physicians even more staggering.

No wonder that some physicians become so passionate in their hatred of lawyers, who bring it on with their version of justice predicated on greed. We have needed a better system for a long, long time.