Healthcare crisis spirals further out of control

[Tiger Al 0]

what would be an acceptable value in money for his life?

are you kidding?

No, I am not kidding. That is what the "cap" on tort liability is. The tort reformists want to limit the amount you may recover from a doctor when he/she is responsible for your injury or death.

Others, capitalists, small government supporters, a.k.a. trial lawyers, argue that the assessment of damages by citizens in a jury box is the best was to control malpractice and that arbitrary caps should not be mandated in order to allow doctors to have cheaper insurance rates, which would also relieve them from losing their amassed fortunes when they destroy their patients' lives through their negligence.

The probelem here being two fold. Why don't you explain to all the good people as to WHEN YOU WOULDN'T SUE. Has nothing to do with the circumstance for most of you, it's only if I could get some money or not. Loser pays would choke the hell out 99% of the lawyers out there.

It would also choke the hell out of most peoples desire to file a lawsuit even if there is a remote possibility of losing. Do you think that someone who's looking at tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills is going to roll the dice with anything less than a slam-dunk multi-million lawsuit? Even if it's totally legitimate, most people (at least the ones I know) probably couldn't take that chance if there was a possibility that someone (judge, arbiter, a few on the jury) would consider their claim "not legitimate" and would, in effect, take away that person's right to a trial.

Are there bogus lawsuits? Everyday. But, you don't throw the baby out with the dirty bath water.

[CCTAU 3,336]

what would be an acceptable value in money for his life?

are you kidding?

No, I am not kidding. That is what the "cap" on tort liability is. The tort reformists want to limit the amount you may recover from a doctor when he/she is responsible for your injury or death.

Others, capitalists, small government supporters, a.k.a. trial lawyers, argue that the assessment of damages by citizens in a jury box is the best was to control malpractice and that arbitrary caps should not be mandated in order to allow doctors to have cheaper insurance rates, which would also relieve them from losing their amassed fortunes when they destroy their patients' lives through their negligence.

The probelem here being two fold. Why don't you explain to all the good people as to WHEN YOU WOULDN'T SUE. Has nothing to do with the circumstance for most of you, it's only if I could get some money or not. Loser pays would choke the hell out 99% of the lawyers out there.

It would also choke the hell out of most peoples desire to file a lawsuit even if there is a remote possibility of losing. Do you think that someone who's looking at tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills is going to roll the dice with anything less than a slam-dunk multi-million lawsuit? Even if it's totally legitimate, most people (at least the ones I know) probably couldn't take that chance if there was a possibility that someone (judge, arbiter, a few on the jury) would consider their claim "not legitimate" and would, in effect, take away that person's right to a trial.

Are there bogus lawsuits? Everyday. But, you don't throw the baby out with the dirty bath water.

We don't wash the baby in dirty bath water anymore. It's time for a change. And some sort of loser pays system needs to be implemented. And when I say loser pays, it does not necessarily mean that the loser pays all of the the other party's cost. But they should have to be accountable for taking tax dollars because they just wanted to throw the spaghetti against the wall.

Hey I just tied this in to the current sKerry campaign. That's ther MO in politics also.

[LegalEagle 22]

These are private lawsuits. Tax dollars spent are recovered through payment of court costs.

When a doctor is sued, he/she is backed by a team of attorneys with lots of money to spend. They are in the best position to drive up costs and run a plaintiff out of his/her just suit.

We have had a system in place for years, Rule 11, whereby sanctions can be ordered to be paid by litigants and/or their attorneys anytime a "frivolous" lawsuit is pursued. Sanctions are seldom assessed however because there are so few frivolous lawsuits filed. Most attorneys in a large suit even make their own clients sign sworn affidavits as to the facts of the case before they will even file. I have heard of some who require their clients to take lie dectector tests before they will represent them.

What you have here are folks riding around in foreign luxury cars, living at the country club, with a nice portfolio of mutual funds complaining about having to pay for insurance. When you calculate the percentages of their incomes going to insurance premiums, it is probably less than the average American blue-collar family.

(Now, let me say that there are some new doctors who are just getting started who are hit hard by premium costs, just like lawyers. I don't mean my characterization to exclude this and other exceptions.)

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I heard someone this morning make a very good point. sKerry claims that within hours of being sworn in as President, he will send a bill to Congress to establish "health care for all". Excuse me, but hasn't he been in Congress for 20 years? If he can do this within HOURS of being sworn in as President, how come he hadn't been able to do this in TWENTY YEARS of being a Senator? Does the Oval Office have magical powers?

[LegalEagle 22]

If you think that's something Jenny, did you hear Bush tell all of the domestic programs he's gonna start . . . AFTER he's been president for almost 4 years??

If he wants to start 'em, he needs to do so before Jan. 20, 2005! *grin*

[Tiger Al 0]

What you have here are folks riding around in foreign luxury cars, living at the country club, with a nice portfolio of mutual funds complaining about having to pay for insurance. When you calculate the percentages of their incomes going to insurance premiums, it is probably less than the average American blue-collar family.

One of the radiologists I work with makes $40,000 per month from our center. We are one of four or five sources of income he has and probably the least in dollar amount. Maybe second lowest. For the sake of argument, let's say he makes the same from them all. That's an income of at least $160,000-200,000 per month. If we use ChatanoogaTiger's estimate of $300,000 for malpractice insurance that is only 12-15% of his income. Seems a small price to pay for him to do business. And that's what it is...a business expense. Forgive me if I don't see the injustice there.

[ChattanoogaTiger 0]

CT, thanks for discussing this subject.  I hope I have time to join in before the thread gets too cold. 

Pressed for time, I would like to know when you think it would be proper and justified to sue a doctor?

Would you under any circumstances sue a doctor?

If a doctor was responsible (gross negligence lets say) for the death of your son, a professional, leaving 4 kids, an uneducated housewife and large mortgage, what would be an acceptable value in money for his life?

Tiger Al

You bring up several points in in your question. You sound like a lawyer (just a joke)

I have some experience in malpractice case as I am called on sometimes for expert testimony. I have successfully defende doctors who are frivously sued and recommended settlement in obvious case of malpractice.

First let me say that in Tennessee the SVMIC (our state insurance for physicians) is very proactive in preventing malpractice and helping physicians document their patient records. SVMIC is also active in helping impaired physicians become rehabilitated (impaired physicians are often negligent in their care). Let me state that true malpractice does occur but many suits are instigated because of bad but unavoidable outcomes. Many times the system is at fault not the individuals (prime example medicatin errors or surgery errors in the hospital). Correcting these system errors is a major concern in hospitals now. We are looking at the airline safety model to help in hospitals.

Another problem with malpractice is the use of bad science and unscrupulous expert witnesses. Mr Edward's made most of his money suing for bad outcomes in infants with cerebral palsy. Previously these bad outcome were thought to be to physician negligence. Science says (using evidence based medicine) that most (but not all) bad outcomes occur because of events prior to delivery out of the control of thee doctors. There is therefore no malpractice. Pediatricians have been sued 20 years after the fact (peculiar laws on statute of limitations in children) because of a bad outcome (blindness due to oxygen for an example) even though the pediatrician used the standard of care for his time

When should a doctor be sued? If a peer board decides he/she was negligent (impaired, poorly trained, etc) then this should happen. Believe it or not but peer review boards are generally harsh and don't "sweep things under the rug"

How much is a life worth? That is a philosophical question that can't be answered. However there are experts who use complicated formulas (using variables in your case scenaro) to calculate a reasonable amount

I saw elsewhere that you quoted my figure of 300,000 for malpractice premiums. That would be the extreme case foar high risk specialites such as obstetrics. My malpractice is reasonable but still represents about 8-10% of my income. I am in a teaching position and my expenses and salary are paid by the hopital/university

Also don't think all doctors make huge salaries and drive expensive cars. They give the rest of us a bad name This is for you Legal Eagle

[Tigermike 3,044]

The Case against John Kerry’s Health Plan

Much too long to copy and paste in this message. But if you want to read or download the page in PDF format, use the link.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st269/

[Tiger Al 0]

You bring up several points in in your question. You sound like a lawyer (just a joke)

Well, you quoted LegalEagle and he actually is one. I DID stay in a Hol...aw...nevermind!!! I'm just an MRI tech.

[LegalEagle 22]

[quote name=

Tiger Al

You bring up several points in in your question. You sound like a lawyer (just a joke)

I have some experience in malpractice case as I am called on sometimes for expert testimony. I have successfully defende doctors who are frivously sued and recommended settlement in obvious case of malpractice.

Another problem with malpractice is the use of bad science and unscrupulous expert witnesses.

Mr Edward's made most of his money suing for bad outcomes in infants with cerebral palsy. Previously these bad outcome were thought to be to physician negligence. Science says (using evidence based medicine) that most (but not all) bad outcomes occur because of events prior to delivery out of the control of thee doctors. There is therefore no malpractice. Pediatricians have been sued 20 years after the fact (peculiar laws on statute of limitations in children) because of a bad outcome (blindness due to oxygen for an example) even though the pediatrician used the standard of care for his time

When should a doctor be sued? If a peer board decides he/she was negligent (impaired' date=' poorly trained, etc) then this should happen. Believe it or not but peer review boards are generally harsh and don't "sweep things under the rug"

[/quote]

You are an expert witness C.T. or a "hired gun" as they are known in our industry. You also recognize that there are "unscrupulous expert witnesses." What makes such a witness "unscrupulous"? Shouldn't the witness be neutral as to either side? Yet you "have successfully defended doctors who are frivolously sued" and recommended settlement in "obvious cases." How many times have you testified for the Plaintiff? Assuming never or only a few times, why not more if you are objective?

You mentioned only frivolous and obvious cases. What about the 80% that fall somewhere between those extremes?

I have no clue how Mr. Edwards made the bulk of his money other than working hard as a capitalist small businessman, but assuming you are correct, you admit that some cases of cerebral palsy are caused from a doctor's negligence. Do you have any proof that any of his cases that he won were not just?

When my baby is killed by a doctor, you think I should have to wait and see if a bunch of doctors say it's ok to sue their fellow practicioner?? You boys had better meet quickly, because it's only a few miles to the lawyer's office!

NOTE: Although this is a little personal toward CT, I am sure he is principled and is following what he feels is right. I appreciate him advising us of the prospective from "the other side." In turn, I appreciate being allowed to show you our "other side."

[ChattanoogaTiger 0]

Leagle eagle

I will respond only once to a personal insult. Your disclaimer at the end did not help

I tried only to present a pragmatic argument to a complicated subject. The question of malpractice is whether a bad outcome is from negligence, chance or a known risk to a particular procedure or therapy.

For the record I am not a hired gun. I have rarely testified over the past 20 years because I am an expert in my field. I have testified in defense of doctors if I feel they are not in the wrong. I have reviewed cases and recommended that the defense settle and not go to court.

Also for the record Edwards did make most of his money suing OB doctors for bad outcomes in babies. Please see my precious argument on using bad science in malpractice cases. If you dont believe my points do a web search using Pubmed for medical evidence to support my assertations, that is of course if you choose to believe the literature

I have several lawyer friends and many doctor friends. We all agree that the major difference between the professions is that lawyers are interested in winning the case and doctors are interested the truth. Another difference is that doctors take suits personally and do not consider malpractice payouts a "cost of doing business" (this is for you Tiger Al) Our state insurance company SVMIC offers counselling for physcians who have been sued to allow them to return to practice. My best friend (a critical care doctor) was involved in suit that he in no way was at fault. He spent countless hours involved in chart review and depositions. Although he is a very stable person he almost quit medicine and had to be placed on antidepressants

A response to this quote

"When my baby is killed by a doctor, you think I should have to wait and see if a bunch of doctors say it's ok to sue their fellow practicioner?? You boys had better meet quickly, because it's only a few miles to the lawyer's office!"

You lead in with a emotional statement which is common with trial lawyers. This is much like Edwards "channeling" the voice of dead infnats in his malpractice cases. I wonder if he can channel the voices of all the dead infants from abortion which he supports. Furthermore this is why I (and most doctors) cringe when they have to take care of lawyers family members. This is why the AMA (american medical association) had to respond to some doctors suggesting that they not be required to take care of lawyers family members. Fortunately most physicians will not go this far

Finally I will end on a sad commentary on physician lawyer relationships. Several years ago a doctor in my community took a friend and neighbor (who happened to a be a lawyer) to the emergency room because of chest pain. These two men were only friends and did not have a doctor patient relationship. The doctor left to go back home to help the lawyers family and the lawyer had a heart attack. He survived but sued his friend for abandonment. This is a true story and needless to say the two men are no longer friends

This will be my last post on this thread.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

looks like you didn't use enough "*grin*"'s, LE.

it's often not the content of your argument, but the manner by which you argue, that produces outcomes...seems like a legal eagle would know such nuances.

the other CT.

oh yeah... *grin*

[LegalEagle 22]

Since he will respond no further. I would only say that I tell the truth. If it hurts, take two aspirins and call me in the morning. *grin*

[Tigermike 3,044]

Since he will respond no further. I would only say that I tell the truth. If it hurts, take two aspirins and call me in the morning. *grin*

How does his not posting further indicate you are telling the truth? Nice try, but I doubt seriously if truth is determined by the last post on an internet message board.

[TitanTiger 20,506]

Since he will respond no further. I would only say that I tell the truth. If it hurts, take two aspirins and call me in the morning. *grin*

A lawyer who thinks he knows the truth. How cute.

[AUloggerhead 2,247]

Since he will respond no further. I would only say that I tell the truth. If it hurts, take two aspirins and call me in the morning. *grin*

Dispensing medical advice without a license? Quick, someone give John Edwards a call -- this should be a slam-dunk lawsuit.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I'm still having a hard time buying the

I have no clue how Mr. Edwards made the bulk of his money other than working hard as a capitalist small businessman

line. It must have been hell chasing $39M worth of ambulances over the past few years.

FWIW Legal, you got your butt handed to you by the good doctor!!

[LegalEagle 22]

I'm still having a hard time buying the

I have no clue how Mr. Edwards made the bulk of his money other than working hard as a capitalist small businessman

line. It must have been hell chasing $39M worth of ambulances over the past few years.

FWIW Legal, you got your butt handed to you by the good doctor!!

Not much.

Hopefully he's a proctologist! *grin*

[AUdaREALsecTigers 2]

What you have here are folks riding around in foreign luxury cars, living at the country club, with a nice portfolio of mutual funds complaining about having to pay for insurance. When you calculate the percentages of their incomes going to insurance premiums, it is probably less than the average American blue-collar family.

One of the radiologists I work with makes $40,000 per month from our center. We are one of four or five sources of income he has and probably the least in dollar amount. Maybe second lowest. For the sake of argument, let's say he makes the same from them all. That's an income of at least $160,000-200,000 per month. If we use ChatanoogaTiger's estimate of $300,000 for malpractice insurance that is only 12-15% of his income. Seems a small price to pay for him to do business. And that's what it is...a business expense. Forgive me if I don't see the injustice there.

ChatTiger and TigerAl both hit the nail on the head. I worked as an ER RN for 10 years in both the rural and teaching facility environment. I've seen the system evolve from actually treating patient's needs to ordering every test imaginable to c one's own a. Radiologists greatly benefit from this (not their fault) because they interpret countless numbers of needless x-rays, ct's and mri's. Not only are these tests expensive to perform and interpret, but often times the patient suffers. (TigerAl, ever heard anybody ask for another triple contrasted ct?)

And guess what... more staff is required to perform all of these tests. Somebody's got to pay for all of this. Quess who...

[LegalEagle 22]

If they are ordering tests that are not necessary, but as insurance, then the docs should pay for the unnecessary tests, not the patient.

Btw, where did I hit the nail? *Grin*

[AUdaREALsecTigers 2]

Legal, you, in this case, represent the foreman. These guys are working for you. You don't even need a hammer.

[LegalEagle 22]

Actually I just sit around and wait for someone to get hurt. Then I spring into action! *grin*

Excerpt from my closing argument: "Ladies and gentlemen look again at this poster-size picture of my client's thumb. Notice the blood, the deep bruising and swelling. Imagine the pain he suffered. Now look at the hammer in my hand. It's made of rubber, and this type hammer has been on the market for more years than I've been alive. Had poor Mr. Thumb's employer or the owner of the facility provided him with this rubber hammer rather than the extremely hard cold-forged steel hammer he was forced to use, he would only have received only a slight bruise when he hit his thumb. When you retire to the jury room, try hitting your thumbs with the rubber hammer then the forged steel one. When you feel the pain, think of my client's pain and how easily it could have been avoided. Then think of who is responsible for not providing a safe hammer to Mr. Thumb. Think of all the millions of dollars those responsible parties have and return a verdict not only to compensate Mr. Thumb for his horrendous pain and suffering, but also a punitive amount against his employer and the facility owner in an amount sufficient for them to feel our collective pain in their pocket books and to make sure they never force the working man to use a cold steel hammer again." *grin*

[WarTim 3,456]

liberalism..........What to watch when you grow weary of Comedy Central.