other costs of litigation

http://www.businessroundtable.org/newsroom/document.aspx?qs=55D6BF807822B0F1ED7409167F75A70478252

join http://www.cgood.org

It sound pretty outrageous, but then again, I don’t know the full facts of the case. And the fact that the site reporting this is called “overlawyered” makes me wonder if I’m getting a slanted version of the story.

I didn’t need a barf bag! I’m so proud that I have a stronger stomach than a doctor!

More seriously, nobody ever said that better self-policing would eliminate all lawsuits. In this case, the alleged self-policing was found by 12 jurors to be hidden competitive malice. Would you just tell this doctor “tough luck”?

As for the amount of the verdict, which certainly seems high based on the facts presented by “Overlawyered”, the system has not yet run its course. It won’t make headlines, but there will either be a much-reduced settlement, or an appeals court will make a major change.

Criticizing the legal system for a case at this point in the process is a little like criticizing a heart surgery for causing a major wound before the patient is sewn up.

Don’t know all the facts of this particular case, and DB, I for one would not reach for the barf bag without knowing those details.

Bad faith peer review is very real. It happens, and as far as I’m concerned, it happens A LOT.

As I read this, the targeted cardiologist is separate from the group of cardiologists who ousted him, and according to this source, the group of cardiologists did not get outside review of the case.

Failure to get outside peer review of a physician in this case is not only stupid, in terms of failure to protect yourself, it is a hallmark of bad faith peer review……..in the sense that the established group did not want outside review for a good reason.

I HIGHLY recommend this newsletter.

http://www.medicalaw.net/recent_legal_opinions.htm

Peer Review

Poliner v Presbyterian Hospital
Dallas, Texas Jury Decision

Dr. Poliner, a cardiologist, was told to stop doing heart catheterizations or face termination of his privileges. The hospital and the competing cardiologists who accused Dr. Poliner of inadequate care refused to get outside opinions of the care provided, a serious error. The hospital finally got the outside consultations after the fact and it shown by multiple national experts that Dr. Poliner was practicing good medicine. The hospital then restored the privileges but also upheld the earlier suspension of the privileges. Dr. Poliner sued the hospital and the Chiefs of Medicine, Cardiology and Cardiac Catheterizations. The jury awarded Dr. Poliner $366 million in damages for breach of contract, defamation, interference with contractual relations and intentional inflection of emotional distress. The jury split the award by $161 million from the hospital, $141 million from the Chief of Medicine, $32 million from both of the other two. The case will be appealed and Dr. Poliner will not receive anything even close to the amount awarded, if anything. I am sure that all four defendants are sweating since this is usually not covered by insurance.

c’mon db, I showed you the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette series on bad-faith peer review a while ago, you even ran it here on your site.

Bad-faith actions, by physicians, against other physicians they don’t like (read: competitors) is unfortunately, all too common.

A better method in this case would have been to treat the physician fairly in the first place.

If you have a problem physician in your midst, step one is OUTSIDE REVIEW. Geez, that’s like having a female chaperone for intimate female examinations. Don’t do it, you are asking for a pile o’ trouble.

And the cases that have come to my attention, when they fail to get outside review, it usually means malicious intent on the part of the medical staff or administration.

They don’t like the competition.

No argument from me on that regard. Hundreds of millions is a little ridiculous.

Problem is, peer review law is such that, even if the doc really was terribly wronged, I despair he will not see penny one after appeals.

“m” (can I call you “m” for short?) I hope we’re not talking across each other.

“ASSUMING” this really is a bad-faith peer-review case (I do NOT know the facts) and assuming the plaintiff really is the wronged party….

My problem is not that the award is excessive (which it is)…..

My problem is, for the typical bad-faith peer-review case, the law is so skewed against the targeted physician, that in the end, the plaintiff will not get one cent.

That jury could have awarded one hundred BILLION for all it matters, in the end, the plaitiff physician will get NOTHING.

The way the law stands on physician peer review today, the review and the actions taken in this case could be motivated by obvious bias practically advertised in the newspapers, done in a biased and sloppy manner, with the facts 99% wrong…..but if the defense has 1% on their side, they will likely prevail at appeal.

If you want citations and legal reviews on the subject, I will be glad to forward them.

Blogs on Poliner
The medical blogs are naturally talking about the Poliner litigation, where a doctor who had privileges suspended for allegations of improper care sued everyone involved in the peer review decision and eventually got a jury verdict of $366 million (Aug…

A slightly better restatement – In those rare circumstances when juries come back with verdicts of this magnitude, most of the time it is because they have decided that the defendant is lying.