Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Worried New Jerseyans Expect Doctors Not To Be In
NYTimes ^ | 1/30/03 | ROBERT HANLEY, MARIA NEWMAN

Posted on 01/30/2003 4:59:54 PM PST by Libloather

Worried New Jerseyans Expect Doctors Not To Be In
By ROBERT HANLEY and MARIA NEWMAN

As New Jersey braces for a work stoppage by doctors on Monday, physicians are canceling appointments, emergency rooms are planning for a sudden influx of patients, and many residents — including the governor — are beginning to fret about disruptions in health care.

A movement that began last summer with isolated grumbling about soaring premiums for malpractice insurance has drawn broad support from doctors across the state and now seems poised to interrupt the everyday interaction between them and their patients.

Whether those interruptions will last a day, a few days or longer is uncertain. But for Monday, at least, officials of the Medical Society of New Jersey, which supports the action, are predicting that thousands of doctors will cancel their office appointments for nonemergency care.

The president of the society, Dr. Robert S. Rigolosi, estimated yesterday that 5,000 to 10,000 physicians would participate. New Jersey has 22,000 practicing doctors.

"We're talking about thousands of doctors in New Jersey being involved," said Dr. Thomas Ahlborn, the director of surgery at Valley Hospital in Ridgewood. "There's never been anything like this in the country."

About two dozen surgeons in West Virginia staged a walkout earlier this month, prompting a state legislative committee to approve a cap on juries' malpractice awards, and inspiring doctors here to try the same strategy.

But Gov. James E. McGreevey's spokesman denounced the threatened job action as irresponsible and counterproductive as Mr. McGreevey and state legislators tried to resolve the thorny issue of helping doctors who face steep increases in their malpractice insurance premiums.

"The governor believes it's a monumentally bad idea for the doctors to strike while he's trying to fix the problem," said the spokesman, Micah Rasmussen. "That's not the way to solve this problem."

The doctors seemed in no mood yesterday to relax either their threat or their demands that the Legislature enact a $250,000 cap on jury awards for so-called pain and suffering damages for victims of medical negligence.

New Jersey's trial lawyers are adamantly opposed to any such cap, and Mr. McGreevey has expressed sympathy with lawyers' opposition to curbs on victims' rights to sue doctors for serious medical mistakes.

A coalition of groups, including the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group and Consumers for Civil Justice, rallied at the State House in Trenton yesterday to oppose any such limits.

Mr. Rasmussen said the governor favored the creation of a subsidy program to help those doctors who face the steepest increase in premiums.

But Dr. Rigolosi said the medical society was not interested in subsidies.

"The answer is to cap the award," he said, adding that doctors were not seeking limits on awards for a malpractice victim's medical costs or lost pay.

Dr. Rigolosi said the duration of the work stoppage would vary from doctor to doctor, with some participating one day, some several days, and some perhaps into the next week. For many, he said, the protest would last at least two days.

The doctors planned a demonstration outside the State House on Tuesday morning.

In recent days, doctors have been sending patients a version of a letter endorsed by the medical society that says their "ability to take care of your medical problems is in great jeopardy" because of a legal system that doctors say encourages patients to file frivolous lawsuits "in the hope of `hitting the lottery.' "

Dr. Ahlborn said he would close his office on Monday to all patients except those recovering from surgery or facing an immediate emergency. He also said that all elective surgery at Valley Hospital in Ridgewood would be canceled on Monday.

Dr. Thomas Pitoscia, an internist in Millburn, also said he had canceled appointments for Monday. He said he would see patients who need immediate care, "but if you want a physical or have a minor ailment, then you will have to wait a day."

"We are going to start with one day and see if anything comes out of that," he said. "I think doctors are prepared to do this again and again until we see results."

He and other physicians said hospitals around the state were increasing emergency room staffs in anticipation of the walkout.

Kerry McKean-Kelley, a spokeswoman for the New Jersey Hospital Association, which represents 106 of New Jersey's 117 hospitals, said contingency planning had been under way for weeks.

"We do expect to see added pressures in the emergency rooms," she said. "The physicians planning the job actions have been very cooperative with the hospitals ahead of time to make sure patient care is not compromised."

She said some doctors who canceled office hours plan to visit patients who are hospitalized. But, she said, many hospitals have canceled elective surgeries and nonemergency procedures.

Dr. Peter J. DeMauro, chief of staff at the Hackensack University Medical Center, said the hospital had staff physicians in all specialities prepared to handle an increase in emergency-room visits.

Still, some New Jerseyans were jittery.

Margaret Johnston, 68, of Union, said she heard about the potential work stoppage yesterday and quickly arranged to see her doctor on Friday.

"I don't really have any serious ailments, but I just want to be on the safe side in case they stop working for a while," she said.

But Carol Deus, 55, of Martinsville, a diabetic who is recovering from back surgery, said she was unaware of the job action.

"If I have a serious problem," she said, "I won't hesitate to go to an emergency room."

Michael Billington, 42, a construction worker from West Orange, said he sympathized with doctors facing high premiums. "While I understand their situation, I hope it's resolved quickly," he said.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: joisey; newjerseydoctors
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
New Jersey's trial lawyers are adamantly opposed to any such cap, and Mr. McGreevey has expressed sympathy with lawyers' opposition to curbs on victims' rights to sue doctors for serious medical mistakes.

Apparently, California has the cap - and it seems to work very well.

1 posted on 01/30/2003 4:59:54 PM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather
sue doctors for serious medical mistakes.

A different story than 'sue doctors for poor medical outcomes' which is what is happening now.

There is a huge difference.

2 posted on 01/30/2003 5:05:20 PM PST by RJCogburn (I mean to.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
If I needed critical care from MY doctor and he wasn't availabe to tend to my needs Monday because of his protest, he would need care from a physician as soon as I was able to beat his A$$. Even worth losing my right to weapons for assult as passed by senile,brain damaged (now) Lautenberg.
They must have forgotton the oath taken at graduation .
3 posted on 01/30/2003 5:15:24 PM PST by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
How about capping lawyers awards, 10% or 200 dollars an hour, whichever is less.

It's not right for these lawyers to win life's lotteries from other people's misery. They are just greedy people. They don't need all that money. The government should stop these rich trial lawyers. (That would be the solution if trial lawyers supported Republicans).

4 posted on 01/30/2003 5:23:16 PM PST by Betty Jane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Hmmm, Doctors or lawyers: which would you rather live without?
5 posted on 01/30/2003 5:40:46 PM PST by NewHampshireDuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renegade
So your doctor is your slave, now?


This will teach you for refusing to work for a loss, Doctor!!!

6 posted on 01/30/2003 6:11:24 PM PST by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo
I would like to live without lawyers. It used to be an honorable profession, but these days lawyers are without morals and seem to be extremely greedy.
7 posted on 01/30/2003 6:31:14 PM PST by maxwellp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo
As a tech worker degreed in electrical engineering....I tell my children that there are two professions that can either kill you or bankrupt you(or send you to the BIG HOUSE)....doctors and lawyers.....and to avoid both.
8 posted on 01/30/2003 6:39:39 PM PST by Johnny Crab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Margaret Johnston, 68, of Union, said she heard about the potential work stoppage yesterday and quickly arranged to see her doctor on Friday.

"I don't really have any serious ailments, but I just want to be on the safe side in case they stop working for a while," she said.

Unbelievable.

It would be interesting to check the death rates if the doctors walk out. I seem to remember a doctor walkout in California a while back where the death rate went down when the docs were on strike.

9 posted on 01/30/2003 6:53:00 PM PST by Auntie Mame (Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry.--Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
If any doctor calls for a policeman, tell them the police are not in today.
10 posted on 01/30/2003 6:55:09 PM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Renegade
They must have forgotton the oath taken at graduation .

If the oath is, "First, do no harm," then if they don't see you they can't do any harm to you. So in a sense, not practicing their profession is living up to their oath.

I only hope your diatribe was rhetorical because if you really meant what you said, you're on the wrong website.

11 posted on 01/30/2003 6:57:18 PM PST by Auntie Mame (Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry.--Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
rooster...

If any doctor reports his house on fire, tell him the firemen are not in today.

12 posted on 01/30/2003 6:57:29 PM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
If any doctor calls for a policeman, tell them the police are not in today.

Awww, cyni, that's hardly an analogy, but good try. ;^)

13 posted on 01/30/2003 6:58:54 PM PST by RJCogburn (I mean to.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
New Jersey's trial lawyers are adamantly opposed to any such cap, and Mr. McGreevey has expressed sympathy with lawyers' opposition to curbs on victims' rights to sue doctors for serious medical mistakes.

And of course, the scumbag Democrats are in the pocket of the scumbag trial lawyers so....

Mr. Rasmussen said the governor favored the creation of a subsidy program to help those doctors who face the steepest increase in premiums.

.....so bend over, taxpayers, LOFL!!!

New Jersey is such a liberal toilet....

14 posted on 01/30/2003 7:08:09 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Mr. Rasmussen said the governor favored the creation of a subsidy program to help those doctors who face the steepest increase in premiums.

WOW, an income redistribution scheme that benefits doctors? Unfriggingbelievable!!

McGreevy must really be a slimebag.

15 posted on 01/30/2003 7:25:11 PM PST by upchuck (TSCG: Your intelligence is equal to the smoothness of a walnut shell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Rooster...

Back when I was younger, my friends struck the FAA, doctor friends were outraged. They could'nt do that etc etc. That was a different horse...

16 posted on 01/30/2003 7:28:30 PM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Rooster...

In fact some demanded they all be fired for "withhholding a needed public service". Reagan did just that. They deserved to be fired. If a doctor wishes to walk out, fine thats his right, just suspend his license for 30 days. He does not have to work if he does not want to.

17 posted on 01/30/2003 7:35:54 PM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Auntie Mame
Do you spend all day in a tree playing the flute ??? That is the most disturbing reply I could imagine . Do you use Voodoo or the witch doctor to cure any ills ?
18 posted on 01/31/2003 3:31:53 AM PST by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
Are you referring to public employees who had a contractual obligation to work?

If so, that is hardly an analagous to private individuals who choose to work, or not. There is no contractual obligation for private individuals as there is for firefighters, police, or presumably your FAA friends...air traffic controllers, perhaps.

If private individuals can be forced, compelled, coerced into having to work, regardless of their own choices, well, that hardly sounds like a free society to me.

19 posted on 01/31/2003 4:37:57 AM PST by RJCogburn (Yes, it's bold talk........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Rooster....

Now Rooster, don't get confused as to the order in which anyone is forced or obligated to work or not.

The medical profession enjoys "total" protection from competion from many areas of other providers. For this they have no "contract" and no obligation, legal or otherwise???? Well, ok so be it.

How is one to square with the Federal government, legally forcing union workers to work against their wishes???? They have a right to strike, yet are forced to work. This is done because it is deemed to be harmful to the public welfare.

The doctors do not mind that the longshoremen, miners or whomever are forced to work. I suspect the difference here is that we are discussing a government protected profession vs the common man. The socialists realize this and exploit it, yet republicans and conservatives wonder why the common worker supports and votes for democrats.

The government does not protect the longshoremen from competion, yet recently they were forced to work against their will.

As for the FAA, I had retired the year before the strike. My friends were stupid for striking, yet they were fired for withholding their service, which no one else could provide, all in the name of public safety.

Personally, I am with the doctors but once again, they have shirked their obligation to society to open the medical field to others, refused to call for an increase in the supply of doctors, and why??? Because they have a lock on their clients because of the government. If they want to withhold their service, fine with me but I would suspend their licence, no other profession or employee has such protection. None, absolutely none.

20 posted on 01/31/2003 6:34:56 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Renegade
If I needed critical care from MY doctor and he wasn't availabe to tend to my needs Monday because of his protest, he would need care from a physician as soon as I was able to beat his A$$.

Why don't you go find a lawyer and beat his a**? Doctors are under no obligation to work if they can make a better living doing something else.

Do you think doctors are slaves to your wishes?

21 posted on 01/31/2003 6:38:44 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Anyone know a Doctor that ever got fired? If they didn't mess up so much they would not get sued so much. Like a bad driver some should pay big insurance. Alot of Doctors are hazzards. They Kill. with a license...
22 posted on 01/31/2003 6:44:58 AM PST by Afronaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
The medical profession enjoys "total" protection from competion from many areas of other providers.

How so? What do you think happened to doctors whose specialty was treating polio? They either adapted or got out of the business, just like anyone else.

For this they have no "contract" and no obligation, legal or otherwise????

Are you suggesting doctors are obligated by social contract to work for little or no salary? Or even at a loss? Why must they subvert their ability to pay their own mortgage/bills, kids' college, etc?

23 posted on 01/31/2003 6:44:59 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Afronaut
Anyone know a Doctor that ever got fired? If they didn't mess up so much they would not get sued so much. Like a bad driver some should pay big insurance. Alot of Doctors are hazzards. They Kill. with a license...

Nonsense! The majority of lawsuits are frivolous - not based on negligence on doctors' parts but rather on poor outcomes of risky procedures. Let's see some stats regarding the way they "mess us so much" and see just how many "alot" is.

24 posted on 01/31/2003 6:46:50 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Afronaut
If they didn't mess up so much they would not get sued so much.

Right. If McDonald's food didn't kill children by making them fat, that lawyer wouldn't have sued them.

You live in a fantasy universe.

25 posted on 01/31/2003 6:53:26 AM PST by Taliesan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
they have shirked their obligation to society to open the medical field to others, refused to call for an increase in the supply of doctors, and why??? Because they have a lock on their clients because of the government. If they want to withhold their service, fine with me but I would suspend their licence, no other profession or employee has such protection. None, absolutely none.

I'm not gonna beat the dead horse.

I am in favor of what you describe as opening the medical field to others. It is licensure laws, whether for docs, plumbers, lawyers or hairdressers that keep the numbers down, all in the charade of "protecting" the public. You are quite right, it is government laws that gives them the lock on their clients you reference.

You are quite wrong, OTOH, about no other profession having such protection. Lawyers would be one good example...but then a lawyers work stopage would be a wonderful thing! But, really, any field that requires licensure to be able to work has similar protection.

Meanwhile, do me a small favor and sit back, get a cup of your favorite morning beverage, and read about 'Medical Care as a Right - a Refutation' and tell me what you think.

HERE

26 posted on 01/31/2003 6:53:38 AM PST by RJCogburn (Yes, it's bold talk........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Afronaut
Anyone know a Doctor that ever got fired?

I've fired them. Sorry I didn't notify you first.

27 posted on 01/31/2003 6:54:25 AM PST by Taliesan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
"The majority of lawsuits are frivlous."

Do you have any - ANY - data to support that assertion?

In most states, you can't even file a lawsuit against a doctor without getting an affidavit from another doctor stating that the defendant doctor was negligent. While certainly some of those doctors providing the affidavits are "hired guns," there is no way you can show that the "majority" of them are.

28 posted on 01/31/2003 7:04:08 AM PST by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Nit...

Not suggesting anything...I am saying that the medical profession cannot have it both ways. Protection thru licensure from government, from competion and with no accompanying obligation. CA is importing Mexican doctors, "under contract" to serve people in southern CA that have little or no medical care. American doctors have chosen not to serve them because of their inability to pay. Thats fine with me. That is their right. Now if the middle class CA people that are on the borderline of ability to pay, decide they also would accept inferior care because it would be available, I suspect the medical profession would be up in arms.

Also the government restricts the number of foreign doctors allowed into this country. I have seen no restrictions on the numbers of Mexicans that arrive and become plumbers, carpenters etc. Protectionism of a profession. The socialists see this and they will use it to bring about socialized medicine in this country. Then we will all be in the same boat pointing fingers at each other.

29 posted on 01/31/2003 7:04:22 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
Protection thru licensure from government, from competion and with no accompanying obligation.

I agree. If it were up to me there would be no state licensure of doctors - people would make their decision based on a doctor's education, experience, and past record.

30 posted on 01/31/2003 7:06:26 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Nit...

My next door neighbor, ob/gyn, has no problem hiring Mexican day laborers to work for him. However if a Mexican doctor showed up in town, I suspect he would be on the phone. Having a lock on your clients is every professions dream. I hire local black handymen, you see the rest of the picture.

31 posted on 01/31/2003 7:16:41 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
"The majority of lawsuits are frivlous." Do you have any - ANY - data to support that assertion?

Just as an example, there was a thread on here the other day about a doctor that was being sued because he marked a uterous he WAS TAKING OUT with the initials of his alma mater, University of Kentucky.

The doctor made a video tape for the couple of the procedure and as they sat down to watch it some time later they saw the doctor mark the uterous.

Of course, now they grabbed a lawyer and are suing the doctor.

Is this your idea of a credible lawsuit? Sure it's just one example but there are many more out there. Admit that it's lawsuits like this one, in the majority or not, that raise the cost of malpractice insurance.

32 posted on 01/31/2003 7:18:54 AM PST by VeniVidiVici
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici
No, that one is not credible, and it is unlikely to succeed.

Frivolous claims have a marginal effect on premiums. There is simply no support for the claim that malpractice premiums are skyrocketing as a result of unmerited lawsuits.

33 posted on 01/31/2003 7:25:37 AM PST by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Renegade
Do you spend all day in a tree playing the flute ??? That is the most disturbing reply I could imagine . Do you use Voodoo or the witch doctor to cure any ills ?

You think whipping a doctor's a$$ sounds mature and reasonable? You have the right to go to any doctor you choose; a doctor has the same right to treat you or not.

The frivolous lawsuits are the problem. Not the doctors.

34 posted on 01/31/2003 7:27:23 AM PST by lonestar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Do you have any - ANY - data to support that assertion?

"Perry has attributed the malpractice insurance crisis to the growing number of "frivolous and abusive" lawsuits, and to escalating damage awards, settlements and legal expenses. He says 86 percent of medical malpractice claims are dismissed without payouts."

-Perry puts priority on medical malpractice

"The White House said the president's plan could save the federal government $30 billion annually in health costs and could reduce such costs for all Americans by $60 billion or more."

-Bush slams 'junk and frivolous' suits

These are two that popped up quick on Google.
35 posted on 01/31/2003 7:35:11 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Continuing my thoughts...read up on the lawyers flocking to Mississippi to file lawsuits. I believe the payouts of $1 million or more have increase by 600% in MS in the last 5 years. You think huge payouts don't cost money in the form of increased premiums?
36 posted on 01/31/2003 7:36:37 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
I am glad that now, on FR, the statements of politicians pushing an agenda constitute "data."

"Perry has attributed the malpractice insurance crisis to the growing number of "frivolous and abusive" lawsuits, and to escalating damage awards, settlements and legal expenses. He says 86 percent of medical malpractice claims are dismissed without payouts."

It doesn't take a lot of effort to see the inherent contradiction here. If 86 percent of claims are dismissed without payouts, why do we need to address this issue by focusing on the other 14%?

37 posted on 01/31/2003 7:44:23 AM PST by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan
And they lost their Job? Or just you as a their smart-ass paitent?
38 posted on 01/31/2003 7:51:35 AM PST by Afronaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
You are a little behind:

Mississippi Medical Malpractice Update Mississippi Enacts PLI Reform Law During Special Session

On October 8, 2002, the Mississippi legislature passed and Governor Musgrove signed a bill addressing physician professional liability reform. Several of AOA’s reform principles were addressed.

Non-economic damage limitations

The new law includes non-economic damage caps:

A $500,000 cap in place on Jan. 1, 2003, increasing to $750,000 on Jan. 1, 2011,and to $1 million on Jan. 1, 2017. This cap does not apply to damages for disfigurement. This cap does not apply if the judge decides that the jury can award punitive damages. Also, the cap does not apply to economic damages.

Joint and several liability

Ends joint liability for non-economic damages. This means that defendants will only need to pay for their percentage of fault. Changes joint and several liability standards for economic damages: If the defendant is less than 30% responsible then she or he only needs to pay that percentage of economic damages,

and

If the defendant is 30% or more responsible then she or her can be made to pay for up to 50% of economic damages. Good Samaritan Immunity from Liability

Any licensed physician who voluntarily provides in good faith needed medical or health services to any program at an accredited school in the state without the expectation of payment shall be immune from liability for any civil action arising out of the provision of such medical or health services, except for cases of willful acts or gross negligence. This immunity applies only if the physician and patient complete a written waiver before medical services specifying that such services are provided without the expectation of payment and that the licensed physician shall be immune. A physician who provides free medical services under a special volunteer medical license is immune from liability for any civil action arising out of any act or omission resulting from the rendering of the medical service unless the act or omission was the result of the physician's gross negligence or willful misconduct. In order for the immunity under this subsection to apply, there must be a written or oral agreement for the physician to provide a voluntary noncompensated medical service before the physician provides the services.

Statute of Limitations

Establishes a statute of limitations of two years from the date that the malpractice occurred or should have been discovered, no later than seven years from occurrence. However, this rule has the following exceptions:

Exception for foreign bodies states that the time period for filing suit starts when the foreign body is discovered. Exception for fraud states that the time period for filing suit starts when the fraud is discovered. If the malpractice is against a child under the age of six, then the time to file a lawsuit extends until the child reaches age eight. If the malpractice is against a child who does not have a parent when the malpractice was or should have been discovered, then the time to file a lawsuit continues for two years after the parent’s death. If the malpractice is against a person who is of “unsound mind” when the malpractice was or should have been discovered, then the time to file a lawsuit continues for two years after no longer disabled.

Venue for lawsuits

All lawsuits against doctors and other health care professionals based their medical services must only be filed in the county where the wrongdoing occurred. This provision prevents plaintiffs from choosing a sympathetic area in which to file a lawsuit.

Not included in the newly enacted law are:

Periodic payments of future damages Offsets for collateral sources Limitations on attorney contingency fees

39 posted on 01/31/2003 7:52:08 AM PST by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
It doesn't take a lot of effort to see the inherent contradiction here. If 86 percent of claims are dismissed without payouts, why do we need to address this issue by focusing on the other 14%?

There's two factors at play here:

1. The high cost of defending frivolous suits until they're dismissed (or the cost of paying them to go away)

2. The excessive awards assessed for the remaining 14%. Economic damages are meant to cover a person if they're disabled as a result of negligence - punitive damages are being awarded as though the person hit the lottery. If you want to punish a doctor for negligence conduct a criminal trial.

40 posted on 01/31/2003 7:53:13 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I didn't know MS had passed a law. Thanks for the info.
41 posted on 01/31/2003 7:54:00 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
""Perry has attributed the malpractice insurance crisis to the growing number of "frivolous and abusive" lawsuits, and to escalating damage awards, settlements and legal expenses. He says 86 percent of medical malpractice claims are dismissed without payouts."

so where is the problem? That they get sued or payout? 14% payout would seen to cover the hack-saw-bones out there.

42 posted on 01/31/2003 7:55:47 AM PST by Afronaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Afronaut
They lost their job. Happens all the time. Just because you don't read about something in the Enquirer doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
43 posted on 01/31/2003 8:00:36 AM PST by Taliesan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan
Enquirer?
44 posted on 01/31/2003 8:21:55 AM PST by Afronaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: maxwellp
I would like to live without lawyers. It used to be an honorable profession, but these days lawyers are without morals and seem to be extremely greedy.

Most of them are, yes. I do, however, know two exceptions: my fabulous brother-in-law and one of my best friends, who has always been quite straight-up with me, and never advocated anything frivolous. In fact, he's deterred quite a few of our mutual friends from filing frivolously. (I need another word besides "frivolous.")
45 posted on 01/31/2003 8:27:32 AM PST by Xenalyte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lonestar
Guess you are a poor reader....I said if I needed critical care which means my life is on the line . Wake Up!!
46 posted on 01/31/2003 11:09:18 AM PST by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
If you went to Pitt you would have given a more logical answer .
47 posted on 01/31/2003 11:10:35 AM PST by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Renegade
If you went to Pitt you would have given a more logical answer.

You must be a Pitt alum yourself. I recognized that kneejerk problem-solving response "I'll kick his a**" anywhere. Only Pitt grads are too stupid to engage their brain while solving problems.

48 posted on 01/31/2003 11:46:55 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Yeah, from P.S.U. who gave us the F--- Festival and Vagina Monologes last year which was paid for by student fee money .
49 posted on 01/31/2003 12:27:54 PM PST by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Renegade
he would need care from a physician as soon as I was able to beat his A$$.

Well, that's a pretty silly statement.

50 posted on 02/01/2003 6:08:49 AM PST by RJCogburn (They don't call him lucky for nothin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson