Malpractrice insurance madness

Washington Times ^ | 1/06/03

[kattracks]

The threat to Americans' access to medical care posed by medical malpractice lawsuits is on display again, this time in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, Gov.-elect Ed Rendell headed off a possible crisis last week by appointing a special commission to tackle the problem and promising to seek malpractice premium reductions as large as 40 percent. Before Mr. Rendell's announcement, more than 20 Philadelphia-area hospitals had made preparations to shut down emergency rooms.

[Neanderthal]

"Some doctors complain that Gov. Bob Wise, a Democrat, has shown more interest in meeting with trial lawyers — who have resisted limits on the right to sue or the amount that plaintiffs can collect from doctors —than he has in meeting with doctors who say they can no longer afford to practice in West Virginia."

He won't solve this by talking to the lawyers. He needs to lock the door and sit down with the docs and the insurers. Strong tort reform would cause premiums to fall rapidly within 1 or 2 years, once the claims experience turns around and proves that tort reform has actually worked.

[Tripleplay]

But West Virginia, as readers of this editorial page know, is but one example of the festering national problem of lawsuits which are driving up insurance costs for conscientious doctors

Correction............We all pay!

[kattracks]

Yes, you're right, we all pay

[RWG]

Strong tort reform would cause premiums to fall rapidly within 1 or 2 years, once the claims experience turns around and proves that tort reform has actually worked...not according to article post on FR which cites insurance industry association as declaring tort reform will have no influence on premiums. National news report about home insurance indicates filing claims will get you blacklisted. Auto insurance premiums now determined by credit report. Tort reform seems to be irrelevant.

[Neanderthal]

"not according to article post on FR which cites insurance industry association as declaring tort reform will have no influence on premiums. National news report about home insurance indicates filing claims will get you blacklisted. Auto insurance premiums now determined by credit report. Tort reform seems to be irrelevant."

Think about what you're saying. I said strong tort reform, which means reform that will cut down on the number and amount of claims. I believe that the insurance association said that it will have no immediate effect on premiums. That's only common sense. A lot of "tort reform" is BS and completely ineffective, because the lawyers make the politicians water it down so much that it is useless. The insurers are saying that they'll wait and see if it is real tort reform or BS tort reform. The claims will tell the story. If claims don't decline premiums won't decline. If claims decline, so will premiums.

Med mal insurance is a competitive industry, kept honest by the many doctor-owned "bedpan mutuals." If tort reform is real and measurably effective, premiums will definitely decline.

[Savage Beast]

The only way to solve this problem is to take the profit to lawyers out of health care.

I deeply resent being forced to pay an army of lawyers to police the system. Make it optional, and I'll gladly choose affordable health care with no option to sue--over what we've got now! Trial lawyers obviously have no intention of allowing such an option--for obvious reasons.

[Dick Vomer]

loser pays and if found "not liable" or "dropped" after deposition the defense lawyer and physician should be payed by the plaintiff and the the doctor should be able to sue the "expert" witness for "malpractice". Now even if you are not guilty you have to have a defense attorney, hire an expert, file depositions and waste time and mental anguish for plaintiff's attorney's who are trawling for settlements. Screw the lawyers.... all of them.

[RWG]

I hope so but I don't expect it especially when auto insurance premiums are determined by credit report.

[TomSmedley]

It's long past time for responsible legislators on the state and federal level to say no to the excesses of trial lawyers and yes to responsible doctors and their patients.

Actually, when the medical profession waffled on its own identity, and went on record as being driven more by profit than by principle, they forfeited the prior public presumption of good faith.

Until the profession purges itself of abortionists, their credibility will remain crippled. In countries like Holland where the culture of death has taken deep roots, elderly and handicapped patients fear the physician, since they have no way of knowing whether the guy with the syringe is bringing life or death.

[Freedom4US]

The incestuous relationship between liberal democrats and trial lawyers is there for all to see - and it's finally making it to the "mainstream" news (Things must be really bad as opposed to just catastrophic)

This isn't anything new, although look for the media to gloss over the real problem and blame the Insurance companies - guaranteed. Any "solution" will, after the smoke clears, essentially boil down to Mr. and Mrs. US taxpayer footing the bill.

[retiredtexan]

The sad thing about malpractice is that the american people have been brain washed into believing that doctors are infalable, therefore any thing less than perfection is malpractice, the jackppot has then been hit.Doctors should not be held to higher standards than the american people themselves adhere too. Most of the american people do not have very high standards:ie Clinton, Democrats, Pelosi,Gray out Davis, etc.

I have survived bladder cancer for seven years, the urologist is good and I have been lucky.But no guaratees were given or did I expect any, just hope and prayers.

[Glenn]

If tort reform is real and measurably effective, premiums will definitely decline.

There's another head to the dragon. Those premiums are invested to provide a return that's very important to rating. Unless you've been living in a cave, you have to recognize that insurance companies were slammed by this roller-coaster of an economy over the last few years. High returns on investment coupled to competitive rating amongst insurers artificially propped up (or down, as it were) insurance rates in all sectors, including med-mal. Rates will never be what they were until there is a combination of effective tort reform and a robust economy.

[friendly]

As Pennsylvania teeters on the brink of medical delivery collapse, there are two worse states: West Virginia (#49) and Mississippi (#50) both are the poorest, most corrupt, and most 3rd World of all 50 states. Yet these two backwaters have many of the richest lawyers in America. Mississippi judges get huge "loans" and oceanfront condos from the crooked trial lawyers. The attorney industry (read democrat party) basically runs both states as their medieval fiefdoms. (see documenting linked newspaper articles at www.Overlawyered.com )

The trauma care, emergency surgical, and obstetrical physicians in all 3 states (plus Clark County, Nevada---Las Vegas) are being driven out of business due to massive malpractice premiums they cannot afford. There is no meaningful trauma care in most areas of these areas. The obstetricians in particular have been run out of town by the lawyer industry, becoming economic refugees to other states less benighted than the pathetic, corrupt West Virginia and Mississippi backwaters. Healthcare in WV and 'Ol Miss (already the worst of all 50 states) is detreriorating rapidly due to the multi-millionire greed of the shysters.

The dirty little secret of medical liability insurance is that only 30% of the premiums go to (allegedly) injured plaintiffs. The trial lawyers get their 30-40% of course. But the costs of the DEFENSE attorneys is equal to the payouts to the plaintiffs attorneys!!

God forbid the pathetic excuses for governors in Pennsylvania, WV, and Mississippi would enact authentic tort reform to lower the income of their lawyer buddies.

The democrats will enrich themselves (or at least their trial lawyer constituency), destroy the trauma and obstetrical system, and have the SHAMELESS gall to demand a federal takeover and universal health system to "correct" the non-functional, lawyer-ravaged system. I am absoluely convinced this will be lawyer-politician Hillary's agenda when the time comes.

I think that the trial lawyers are only too happy to be a part of the democrat effort to destroy the health care system, so that the democrats will then trot themselves out of the shadows to claim to be saviors!. I strongly believe that national health care will be the cornerstone to a Hillary Clinton campaign!!

One maddening thing (for the docs) about the med malpractice industry is that the suits and payouts generally bear no relationship to competence. Thus doctors who agree see the most high risk (sickest) patients are the most likely to be sued. Very sick patients are more likely to have adverse outcomes. Another example is the gold mine (for crooked lawyers) who make mega-bucks off of neurosurgeons (brain injury almost always has some residual brain damage, by definition) and obstetricans (congenital blameless birth defects equals lawyer yachts and French Riviera condos).

My recommendations for this problem and for the unregulated lawyer plague that damages all of our lives in so many ways? The world would be a better place with:

1) Loser Pays.

2) Massive tort reform on a unprecedented level

3) Widespread empowerment of paralegals for independent practice

4) An end to punitive damages.

5) An end to bogus class action suits.

6) Outlawing contingency fees (This is considered grossly unethical and is completely illegal in almost all other democracies).

7) Lawyers forbidden from running from office. They are agents of the judiciary. Practicing attorneys violate The Separation of Powers when they enrich their lawyer industry at public suffering

8) Most important: a total disempowerment of the bar associations. Lawyer discipline by true consumer control. Like any other industry.

[Aegedius]

Excellent suggestions. I would amend #1 to "Loser's lawyer pays." If these parasites are going to participate in the benefits, they should participate in the risk.

[Savage Beast]

That's a big part of the problem of all this litigation. Even if the defendant wins, it costs him enormous expense, time, and anguish.

A victorious defendant should be allowed to sue the plaintiff's attorney and the plaintiff for emotional distress et al.

[lawgirl]

Don't talk to the lawyers or the doctors or the insurance companies. Talk to the juries. Until this country is made up of people that are willing to be REASONABLE nothing is going to change. Nothing will change if the lawyers know you can get $2 Million verdict for spilling coffee on yourself. That's just the fact of it. Changing the litigious culture in America is what needs to happen.

[Gopher Broke]

Freepers, TAKE ACTION on this...Write your US Representative, Senators and Bush and DEMAND tort reform.

Lawsuit madness costs us EVERYTIME we buy anything, as prices are higher to cover the cost of excess insurance.

And trial lawyers get rich and give big $$ to Democrats!

We need to demand tort reform!!

[madfly]

bttt

[friendly]

Thanks for your observation.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Doctors are held to only the standard of the reasonable doctor. Nothing else. If an ordinary doctor with ordinary skill would not have made an error in the case when an error was made, that is negligence, plain and simple. Why should they not be held responsible?

[Viva Le Dissention]

As a "lawgirl," you should know that on appeal, the initial verdict of 2.9 million was reduced to $480,000 on appeal. After appeal, an out of court settlement was reached.

But here's a few very brief facts about that case which caused the jury to find against McDonalds.

1. McDonalds had an opportunity to settle with the woman for the cost of her medical bills and refused.
2. McDonalds had settled nearly 1000 coffee burn cases in the past several years, but had never consulted anyone about the problem.
3. McDonalds served its coffee, on average, 20 degrees hotter than other fast food restaurants.
4. During trial, McDonalds testified that it knew there was severe risk of burns from the coffee, but chose not to warn the customers or turn down the heat to conform with industry standards.
5. The woman suffered third degree burns over her thighs, buttocks, and groin which required skin grafts and a week long hospital stay.

All in all, although the final settlement isn't public record, I'd say McDonalds came out of that pretty darn good.

[Mamzelle]

Famous McD's coffee case--)))

The woman was elderly, being driven by a family member who handed her the coffee from the window. Then the silly old bat parked the hot coffee between her thighs. The driver moved the car, the coffee spilled.

Why wasn't the driver sued, hmmm? Maybe the driver should have taken better care of the foolish woman, who clearly needs a keeper.

I'm curious as to why McD didn't find a way to drag the family member into the suit. What's it called...impleader? enjoin?

[Dick Vomer]

Doctors are held to only the standard of the reasonable doctor. Nothing else. If an ordinary doctor with ordinary skill would not have made an error in the case when an error was made, that is negligence, plain and simple. Why should they not be held responsible?

Wrong.... to be "named" in a suit all that has to be done is to show the court an "expert" that questions your level of care. Then discovery and depositions are taken. The "deep" pocket, either the hospital or doctor with the most malpractice insurance will get "offered" a settlement. The cost benefit ratio of going to trial, endless depostions, expert witnesses can add up. The insurance company does the math and then figures out which is cheapest. After the payout is made the "rates" are adjusted to reflect the payoff.

example is a Texas infectious disease MD correctly diagnosed an infection from post op wound care. The orthopedic surgeon declared bankruptcy, as did the intensive care doc, the family doc.... so the jury found the infectious disease doc liable for 5% of the "bad outcome" but was made to pay the full $3,000,000 because he had the biggest policy and was held to "joint liability". That means that whomever has the money will cover what the others don't have.... nice huh? The flip side for ER docs is that they can't choose to take or not take cases, and usually are not paid by most of their patients. However they can get sued by the non-paying patients.... that they were forced to take. Usually this boils down to bad outcome not bad medicine. A friend of mine moved to South Carolina from Florida after he resucitated a drunk, single vehicle roll over with patient ejected and "coded" at the scene... Well guess what... he had chronic back pain loss of consortium, and sued and won $350,000 settlement for failing to transfer him to a "trauma center" 64 miles away. Even though he was made to take him due to EMS protocol and couldn't transfer an unstable patient due to COBRA regulation... the lawyers were fishing for some cash to help out with medical bills and a nice little 30% for themselves.... It made him feel like a chump when he realized that "good" medicine didn't matter and that the plaintiff and defense lawyers have a good scam going. Either way they get a cut of the action.... and he's left telling his daughters that he isn't a bad doc... even though he settled. We've talked and came to the realization that if he had just let him die, no lawsuit.... most trauma codes die. With the history of this patient, no one would have found him at fault for the death. However a massive hospital bill and gimpy sad faced survivor is too much for a jury to handle. The insurance company did the math and paid out. Nice huh? The best part is that he'll never resucitate a "trauma code" in the ER again. I'd like the lawyers lurking to think about that. If someone needs "heroic" and complicated resucitation but the outcome is dubious... well screw it. Why bother... almost all cases of this sort end up with serious sequelae (results) even if they are alive. So more and more doctors are backing away from stuff that is cutting edge except in teaching hospitals that have the immunity of the state. Oh well... so it goes.

bottom line is that All lawyers blow goats.

[lawgirl]

The jury still awarded her $2,000,000.00 no matter what it was reduced to. That is the problem. I still say it's an unreasonable award.