Here’s the rub: If you believe that patients should receive reasonable compensation for their injuries, why do you spend so much energy advancing caps on damages which deprive the most seriously injured of reasonable compensation?

Would you deem $250,000.00 to be “reasonable compensation” for your “pain and suffering” if somebody were to surgically sever your spinal cord at the neck? $500,000? How much money would you demand, before you would allow yourself to be paralyzed in such a fashion? How about for reflex sympathetic distrophy so severe that it leaves you in a state of constant pain that cannot even be controlled by narcotics?

Also, if such compensation is “reasonable”, why aren’t you campaigning for such limits across the board, as opposed to only for malpractice cases?

And how is it the trial lawyer’s fault that your medical lobbies focus their efforts entirely on measures which will deprive the most severely injured patients, with the most patent proof of malpractice, of adequate compensation? You think that there is justice in that?

Additionally, why would you care what a lawyer charges? Lawyer fees have no impact on the size of verdicts. Should the state be encouraged to impose limits on medical fees? At least a cap on medical fees would have some relationship to the cost of medical care – and doctors on the whole make vastly more than lawyers.

In terms of needing a wholly different system, I think you should turn to the remarks of Richard Boothman, at the University of Michigan Medical Center’s recent symposium on these issues.

The debate is will go on forever… both sides have truth….

Compromise will not be found on these discussions , especially when physicians see the true harm of the system and lawyers see the true benefits. Neither will admit that there is tremendous good and harm mixed in.

why not support a expert panel of both lawyers and Physicians. all cases that seek noneconomic damages must go through these panels . This would deny no one the opportunity to litigate but would strike a better balance.

isn’t this what family courts do?

Um… No. My argument is very pertinent. The doctors lobbies are arguing that the most severely injured patients should receive patently inadequate damages awards.

Given that the average physician pays about 3% of his income for malpractice coverage, other than in a few high risk specialties, your argument about not being able to afford coverage is “stuff and nonsense”.

Further, why should doctors be insulated from payint fair damages for injuries they cause to their patients? Remember, this “tort reform” effort is not aimed at small cases or at limiting “frivolous litigation” – it is directly aimed at meritorious cases involving the worst possible damages and injuries to the patient.

(Obviously, your curious allegation notwithstanding, damages are not assessed by the plaintiff’s lawyer.)

Your final argument appears to only further my point – you not only want to deprive the most seriously injured patients of a fair recovery, you want to make it economically infeasible for their attorneys to secure even a capped, inadequate damage award. Truly, that’s an immoral stance.

Also, there is simply no merit to your argument that the jury, which is given no information about the attorney fees involved, somehow magically raises its verdict to reflect an attorney fee. Surely you can do better than presenting such absurd make-believe.

The problem with aaron’s argument is that it plays the devil’s advocate too heavily. I understand what Aaron is trying to say, but its taken solely in the context of REAL and JUST malpractice cases. If REAL and JUST malpractice cases were the only ones brought forth, we wouldn’t be having the discussion.

The problem with the current tort system is that there is so much abuse. We have all heard the adds “Do you feel you’ve been the victim of a medical injury case; did you suffer from an unwanted outcome? If you answered yes to either of these questions, call now and get your rightful reimbursement!” Admittedly, you cannot put a limit on pain and suffering. But is it really one person’s responsibility to pay millions of dollars for punitive damages? If so, there are a hell of a lot of people who owe me a hell of a lot of money!

If in a utopia, we would have a perfect tort system, and wouldn’t have to worry about economic caps. As it is though, we cannot introduce a fair tort system due to special interest groups(Trial lawyers support the campaigns of most legislators). The best we can hope to do is impose limits to reign in the fiscal hemorrhaging. While there may be some unfortunate person who has a legitimate claim and receives only 250k (still a damn good award if you ask me) for “pain and suffering”, there will be several others who do not bring forth jackpot cases because it is not as lucrative. Would John Edwards (for lack of a more popular medmal lawyer) go after so many bogus CF cases if he wasn’t guaranteed millions in his own pockets?

a bit off the point.. but How did the medical profession allow itself to be under the thumb off for profit managed care plans and lawyers?

the managed care plans alter the economics to such a great degree that physicians alter all aspects of practice to reach economic viability. in short, we shorten legth of visits, we use midlevels, we spend less time educating…

patients get angry, lawyers become happier (plaintiff and defense)

then malpractice claims rise, awards mushroom, disenfranchised doc’s bend the truth as expert witnesses, welcome 21st century medicine.

then we see med mal practice premiums rise. we then argue the evil is in the trial lawyers.

yet all the time…the forces that shape our practices most fundamentally are ones that affect our economics. Just imagine if doc’s charged typical lawyer fees /hour of service (200-300/hr) we could see far less patients and spend plenty of time with patients. leave the office or Wards early enough to regularly practice in the free clinics (good Smaritan laws apply)

i would think lawsuit would decrease, our incomes would be the same, we would work at less frenzied pace..and ulimately the patient is happier. seems like http://www.simplecare.com has the right idea indeed.

very strange statement immediately above.
99% of charges are based on EM codes and negotiated by insurance companies. if you don’t mind can you tell me a bit more about your 450 dollar charge for 5 minute appointment.?

typical reimbursements are about 150 dollars per hour.

the reason why salaries are larger is becuase most docs work very long work weeks averaging well above 60 hours/week. also MD/DO training requires much more time and is much more costly than law training. I would think that salaries /hour worked would be a bit higher.

common sense i think

In all seriousness though, I wouldn’t point to those numbers as evidence. Quite frankly, it just makes you look extremely gullible. You’d be much better off finding a source that looked at total compensation. The figures reported on this site most likely do not include variable income, resulting in total income. They only take into account yearly salary. And, as we all know, PI lawyers thrive on percentage of jury awards, not salary.

So Aaron, I was trying to hear you out earlier, and assume that you’d just overlooked a few arguments…but seriously pointing to those statistics has lead me to question your analytical capabilities.

In other words, you have no response, correct?

Medical Errors
“A Minnesota health insurer says it won’t pay the bill when doctors make serious mistakes…”