'They Can Sue, But They Can't Hide' 1212
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times (free reg's yada, yada) has this article about Texas doctors running an online blacklist of patients who have sued. The searchable database is at doctorsknow.us. Nice to know that you can get blacklisted for suing the doctor that caused massive brain damage to your kid (and winning)." To add a plaintiff to the database, membership was not always required.
Difficult? (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine how you'll be treated when your chart has you labeled as "malpractice lawsuit plaintiff." The doctor won't even come into the room.
Simple answer... (Score:3, Interesting)
Patient identifier (Score:3, Interesting)
Most charts include your social security number, is it legal for them to use this, or do they have another way?
Still better than Poland. (Score:4, Interesting)
For several thousands of lawsuits, less than 10 were won by the patienst.
People with sponges, scissors, pieces of bandaid left in their bodies during a surgery lost. People whose relatives died because the doctor administered a drug that works opposite to what was obviously required, lost. Doctors found drunk on duty were claimed innocent.
Be happy that you can win at all.
Maybe they should sue programmers... (Score:3, Interesting)
For programs that do not work.
I think I should be able to sue the provider of any software package for any economic harm caused by it.
Geez, I could sue every Linux Developer, every Windows developer, and I could probably get a few hundred bucks out of each.
Oh, suddenly this seems unfair?
Maybe Doctors are just looking for some balance in litigation?
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Then don't file frivolous malpractice lawsuits. (Score:5, Interesting)
about time. (Score:2, Interesting)
I wouldn't want to have a law suite happy client either. In all reality the people that sue thier doctors (or anynone for that matter) are usually looking for a cashcow. If they only were allowed to recover expenses incured because of the malpractrice/whatever then there would be alot less law suites going on.
Geting an extra 5 mil becuase something went wrong and they lost a patient or an arm or somethign doesn't really help anyone. It serves no purpose other than to enrich the plantif and cause the prices of medical proceedures to skyrocket. People think there is money availible and they want it.
Re:On the other hand... (Score:4, Interesting)
I for one am for it. Flame away!
This could be an efficient solution... (Score:2, Interesting)
even better.... (Score:5, Interesting)
eric
Re:Difficult? (Score:5, Interesting)
Owners are afraid of being sued.
3 out of my 4 last apartments I lived at had a clause I had to sign making sure I am not a lawyer and that I would not sue them, etc.
This is a big problem in larger cities like New York, LA, and San Fransisco where there are more potential tenents then apartments or homes available. These are where the tenants and owners can weed lawyers out.
If you owned a place would you rent to a lawyer? I surely would not.
Re:I can only see this as a good thing. (Score:3, Interesting)
But having known a doctor in my family, there are tons of people out there looking to start trouble, patients who try to scam the doc's for painkillers and all sorts of scary stuff you wouldn't believe. There are 10 bad patients for every 1 bad doctor. The doc I know has to reject patients all the time because they seem to be the type of person who is looking for any pretense under which to sue.
The question I'd pose to everyone lambasting this blacklist is that if you were a business person and in the course of doing business you exposed yourself to significant risk of liability and you know one of your customers was just looking for a reason to sue you... would you do business with them?
Re:On the other hand... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why then, do premiums rise so dramatically? The answer is simply because insurance companies are required to keep a certain percentage of their total coverages as a reserve. Certain amounts of this has to be in cash, but a good percentage can be in a stock or other market portfolio. That's right: a lot of this legally mandated reserve is in stocks. Guess what happens when the stock market crashes? That reserve evaporates. Can anyone remember anything like that happening recently?
So what happens when 80% of your reserve disappears? You have to get the money somehow, it's required. Legally. So what else can you put into the reserve, if not your now worthless stock portfolio? Cash. How do you get cash? Premiums. Premiums went up beceause insurance companies stock portfolios plumetted and they needed the cash to fill their reserve.
I love it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Damn Government, trying to censor information that wants to be free.
Damn doctors, thinking up new ways to share information.
Solution: N-Strikes Rule for Both Sides (Score:4, Interesting)
If both sides faced consequences for participating on the blacklist, both sides would be more careful about what they do.
Re:I don't blame the doctors (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Malpractice Insurance (Score:3, Interesting)
Doctors aren't only sued for death. They're sued for a variety of reasons, some of which are silly, pointless, or both.
Unless you're going to only allow malpractice suits when death is the end result, in which case we might find some common ground. But that's not what you were saying. You were just being a moron.
Re:Cause of high insurance rates (Score:3, Interesting)
I know that doctors offices used to get by with one receptionist and one nurse, but now also need at least one specialist in insurance forms.
Re:Then don't file frivolous malpractice lawsuits. (Score:3, Interesting)
Training = YES,
Complaints against them = NO
Actions taken against them by their Licensing board = NO.
It it helps the doctor the public has access, but if it could hurt the doctor the public doesn't.
Re:Difficult? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Beat them at their own game (Score:5, Interesting)
Poorly educated patients would sue and sue... and eventually they would find some poorly educated jury to give them a lot of money.
Poorer people also pull the "sue card" in order to pressure the physician into signing the disability paperwork. Then the money just comes from everybody instead of the doctor's insurance company.
Davak
Cuts both ways (Score:3, Interesting)
Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a friend that.... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. From 1996 through 1999, Florida hospitals reported 19,885 incidents but only 3,177 medical malpractice claims. In other words, for every 6 medical errors only 1 claim is filed.
2. Malpractice insurance costs amount to only 3.2 percent of the average physician's revenues according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC)
or this link: Citizen.org [citizen.org]:
"10.6 percent of the state's doctors have paid two or more malpractice awards to patientsThese repeat offender doctors are responsible for 84 percent of all payments. Even more surprising, only 4.7 percent of Pennsylvania 's doctors (1,838), each of whom has paid three or more malpractice claims, are responsible for 51.4 percent of all payments. "
Frivolis lawsuits really aren't that much of a problem. I am much more concerned about the increasing privitazation and high price of Prescription drugs in this country.
Ethical? Maybe. Meets DB Standard? No. (Score:2, Interesting)
This is the first reference I've seen to a database for physician use about patients. However, you should know that physicians have long had a much more certain guide to difficult patients - namely, word-of-mouth from each other, and from the chart that follows every patient wherever they go.
I don't see an ethical problem for physicians who use it; the Hippocratic oath does not obligate physicians to serve every person who comes to them. Many hospitals reserve the right to refuse service under any of a number of conditions.
However, there are strict guidelines (Privacy Act of 1974 and HIPAA) for the use of databases in health care practice. Among the provisions is the right of patients to view their data and request revisions when appropriate. I looked at the DoctorsKnow.us website, and there doesn't seem to be a provision for a patient to look himself or herself up, see their information, and dispute/correct it. As a private company, they don't need to be HIPAA compliant, but this is a bad precedent.
Re:Puh-lease (Score:2, Interesting)
And Dr Phil will truthfully answer that he was sued for malpractice because he turned up to work drunk?
The danger here is that doctors who got sued quite legitimately will use this to get revenge on anyone who sued them.
What next? A list of anyone who brought a complaint against a doctor?
So next time you go to a doctor you wont know whether he is a good doctor, or only practicing because his patients are too scared to lodge a complaint against him for fear of not being able to get treatment in future.
Re:Then don't file frivolous malpractice lawsuits. (Score:3, Interesting)
I do not agree with your theory at all but I have no experience with a pure HMO. I've been seeing the same doctor with 4 different insurance companies over the years. I can not see how each insurance company he accepts are all controlling him at the same time. I get the same drugs and the same treatments regardless of what insurance company I've had. Yeah, the free samples change from time to time but that's it. In fact, I'd be willing to bet the only two people in the office that even know what insurance I have are myself and the receptionist who photocopied my card.
Re:Difficult? (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny? Hell I'll take a vet over an MD most any time too. As it is, I doctor myself up with veternary supplies. They're simply cheaper. I can legally buy my own general purpose antibiotics and knock out most anything. Wounds I coat down with Blu-Kote wound treatment (typically used for cows and horses of which I have a few). Mammals are mammals for the most part, and if you're not doing surgery, it ain't that big a difference.
Of course I cannot reccomend anyone else do this, but it has worked for me all my years. I am not a doctor nor a veterination, just an old farm hand with a bit of knowledge about critters, of which humans are one.
Re:even better.... (Score:5, Interesting)
99% of these lawsuits that people file against doctors that supposedly caused 'brain damage' to children when they were born are completly bogus. The fact that you child was born with down syndrome has just about as much to do with the doctor that delivered him\her as the sex of that child does.
The total crap part is that you can sue ANYTIME after birth and claim that the doctor that delivered you caused any problems that you have now. I personally talked to a doctor that is being sued by some parents because their child didnt get into the college they were planning on, so they sued the doctor for causing long lasting brain damage 18 years after the birth. The really sad part is the doctor lost the lawsuit and is now repsonsible for paying millions of dollars of damages to the family. And let me say, this is a totaly normal kid who simply didnt get high enough grades on his entrance exams to a college, not some highly deformed retarded human being.
Its really sad when doctors are sued so often and so frequently that they have been driven to do this type of blacklisting.
Insurance costs and lawsuits have gotten totaly out of hand in this country. it has driven medical costs through the roof and something has to give.
If youll remember, a couple years ago somewhere on the east coast, a extremly large group of doctors in virginia I believe went on strike because of sky high malpratice insurance costs. things get much worse and you will see many more strikes like that.
Get your fact right (Score:2, Interesting)
Cell phone companies do the same... (Score:1, Interesting)
The "credit check" that they look for is gives LOTS more value to breaking a cell phone contract / returning a phone within the 14 day trial than having declared bankruptcy within the past 6 months....
Re:Difficult? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why shouldn't this be available? (Score:3, Interesting)
The major problem is that in Texas, you can't see the Doctor's record. Period. I thought that was a Federal thing, but I guess not.
What the insurance co's say is that:
People go for Jackpot Justice. Tell it to my dead mother, killed when the Doctor was fired, refused to let the new doctor into the nursing home, and withdrew all medications. Did we sue? No. Somehow a autopsy was "mistakenly" cancelled by the attending doctor, the same one that was fired.
The huge awards given drive up policy costs: False, the stock market has more to do with it, plus the 4% of doctors that are sued 80% of the time. Get rid of that 4%. Don't let them practice.
Average award for malpractice? Don't know. Many are settled out of court and the award sealed.
So, given that, I can sympatize with high policy costs, but I think the real problem in Texas is that the insurance industry owns the state government lock, stock, and greedy out-thrust hand. For example, on a 100,000 home, the homeowner's insurance rate is 2,900.00 a year. And it doesn't cover water damage for the most part. A law was passed when Dubbya was Gov. requiring insurance to pay for damage to homes caused by foundation problems. They only pay if a water or sewer line breaks, not for any other reason. Oh, yeah, if you have ropes of mold growing due to a water leak, fix it yourself. Insurance pays nothing.
I loved it when the neighbor ran into my garage door and knocked it down. My homeowers wouln't pay, his car insurance said "File on your homeowner's". I eventually paid for it myself.
So when someone says that it's all the suits that cause rates to go up, I laugh. It's not.
Treat your doctor as he would treat you. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't blame them (Score:5, Interesting)
Many factors contribute to expensive health care (Score:1, Interesting)
Many doctors are afraid of being sued (or worse, costing a life), and hence always order every possible test on the off chance that patient XYZ has the only north american occurance of obscure disease LMNOP. Sure, a million dollar work up can more easily spot the odd stuff, but does every patient REALLY need a million dollars worth of tests when presenting with a cold?
Re:This is what they want you to think (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Difficult? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sounds like an insurance company line (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Difficult? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Difficult? (Score:3, Interesting)
as an attorney and a contractor (!) i do wonder about these things, but still feel it is best to decide who to do business with on a case-by-case basis. you never know who will turn out to be the problem.
your question on discrimination law is a good one. how do we choose who is in a "protected class"? after there were a couple of prominent killings maybe 8 years ago the president of the calif. bar did proposed attorneys ought to be protected, which is generally considered nutty. protected classes are generally those that have long histories of fairly brutal discrimination based on an immutable characteristic (race, gender, sexual orientation -- the last one in imho) or certain choices we consider sacrosanct, like religion.
these choices should be a very big deal. as you know, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against gay/lesbian most places, and it has been recently proposed to write an element on that into the constitution itself to remove the subject from democratic debate.
the occasional butthead lawyer who comes up against a butthead developer can fend for him/herself just fine.
Re:even better.... (Score:2, Interesting)
He was real upset because he had to just gun it and get the hell out of there. There are "good samaritan" laws around here that say since he's a doctor, he's obliged to help. But, if he went out and performed CPR on someone who later died or got brain damage, they'd sue his ass into the ground for providing medical services without consent..
It's really a fucked if you do, fucked if you dont type of situation.
The medical profession in america is going to hell, and the sue happy population is driving.
You see those commercials, "do you or someone you know have $AILMENT, if so then you could be entitled to a HUGE SETTLEMENT!!!"..
well (Score:5, Interesting)
My father pays more in medical malpractice insurance than I made last year. He gets sued regularily by people who don't understand basic principals of taking care of their braces. For instance, one of his younger patients decided chowing down on ice cubes was a prudent thing to do. He promptly ripped off one of his braces, which then cut into his lip. His mother sued my father for malpractice.
Another case my father faced was when a teen didn't want his braces and manually removed them from his teeth. The smart lad stripped off most of the enamel on his teeth as well. My father was sued because the teen lied to his parents and only later in court was it proved my father wasn't at fault.
It's bogus cases like that drive up malpractice costs. These doctors aren't being greedy. They are trying to save their practices. It's almost no different than blacklisting spammers.
Re:Difficult? (Score:2, Interesting)
Your statement is so grossly ignorant that it is appalling. First, the small minority of doctors who commit most of the malpractice continue to work. That is part of the problem, at least in Pennsylvania which currently (allegedly) has a malpractice "crisis".
Oops, your bankrupt because you just lost a suit for $2billion while your malpractice only covered you up to $500million.
Is it possible that you are not from the United States? Your use of "million" and "billion" suggests this. Just curious.
Now your kids can't go to college, you have to sell all of your posessions, no insurance company will cover you so you can't work now--all because, after dedicating your life to saving lives, there is one thing you didn't think of while trying to save another life.
You are obviously unfamiliar with the corporate practice of medicine. That prevents virtually everything you describe from happening. In addition, each state has an "insurer of last resort" which is generally very expensive, but which will cover even the most incompetent, riskiest doctors. FWIW, the last time I looked at the doctors' houses and the cars in the lot at the hospital, I didn't see too many 1987 Honda Accords with 185,000 miles on them. That is what I drive, and I am an attorney.
And AFTER THE FACT, some lawyer makes a very emotional argument to a jury of weak-mided suckers.
Are the lawyers supposed to argue BEFORE THE FACT or something? Also, I like the way you characterize jurors. If I thought of them in the way you obviously do, they'd smell me out in a minute. FWIW, for damages to get out of control in a case, you have to have a convergence of many factors -- the right jusry, the right facts, the right attorneys, and the right judge. It virtually never happens, and appellate review reduces damages in "out of control" type cases 99 times out of 100. That is never newsworthy, though, so you don't hear about it in the papers.
I am sure if a doc in the emergency room had as much time to waste analyzing everything as the lawyer took, there would be far fewer mistakes. But when someone is wheeled in bleeding, you have to think FAST. You can't always be perfect.
My father nearly died one year ago today because his doctor failed to diagnose appendicitis until three days after his appendix burst. Fortunately, the internal infection, while severe, was not severe enough to kill him. Another day and it would have. BTW, nobody sued the doctor in that case. We let it go.
Not all cases of malpractice involve the split-second trauma treatment decisions that you describe in your post. Many are slow to develop. Many just result from gross incompetence. To wit:
Do you know that it is SOP now for hand surgeons to have the patient mark the finger that the doctor is to operate on prior to surgery? They started doing this because so many hand surgeons (1 in 4) had operated on the wrong area of the hand during surgery. If it were not for the regulatory aspect of the tort system, it is unlikely that this reform would have taken place.
There are other examples, but I'm sure you're not interested. Lawyers (and the legal system) are just a big boondoggle, and it provides no tangible benefits to you in terms of more careful treatment. I'm sorry that you see things the way you do. Perhaps you might change your mind if you considered what medical treatment would be like if HMOs ran everything and recourse to tort law was no longer available to pressure the system to reform. Whatever.
GF.
Re:Difficult? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's good to see that as a doctor you're will to help anyone who needs help....however I have a true first-hand story coming up.
There is a lawyer in a town in Colorado (Canon City) named Anna Owen. She's not a very good lawyer, btw. She is, however, the primary guardian of my roommates neice. About 5 or 6 months ago she had two anuerisms [sp?], and was rushed to the hospital in Pueblo CO
The second she got in, she started telling everyone how she was a lawyer, and making demands, refusing to sign forms, etc. Frankly, how she was able to be a bitch with two anuerisms is beyond me.
The doctors, not being idiots, or as nice as you perhaps, refused to take care of her, and I can see why. Imagine the lawsuits from her being permanantly brain damaged. They thusly sent her to Denver for treatment, and she was treated quite well. Now here's the kick in the balls.
She, after recovering, is able to work, and does. However, she is now suing the hospital in Denver for causing her undue harm, or some such thing. I wish I had the specifics of the suit at hand. The way I look at it, she had two veins in her head blow up and she's still able to do EVERYTHING she did before, that to me is a miracle in itself, and a testament to the treatment the doctors gave her.
It's good to treat everyone equally, but it turns out the two self-protective doctors here in Pueblo are the winners in this case. But you seem nice, so I hope YMMV.
Re:Difficult? (Score:1, Interesting)
I remember a guy at work who came to work saying how he had got a flu, but self-perscribed some antibiotics and knocked it out quick. He didn't quite get it when I pointed out that antibiotics can't hurt the flu in any way.
Oh, well, I have doctors and vets in the family, so I don't have to pay for treatment until it's serious.
The best cure-all in the world is time.
Re:Difficult? (Score:5, Interesting)
I personally can't help but wonder how much of the soaring cost of malpractice insurance is due to simple profiteering on the part of the insuring companies. Historically laws putting caps on malpractice claims have *not* reduced the cost of malpractice insurance. California, for example, passed an award cap in 1976, over the next 12 years malpractice insurance rates increased by 190%. Hardly the result promised, no?
More significantly other evidence indicates that the insurance companies are simply indulging in price gouging. During the period from 1995-1999 medical malpractic insurance rates increased by around 1.2% During that same period overall health care costs increased by around 13.6 percent. The doctors aren't taking home that extra 13.6 percent, ask any doctors you know. The doctors are getting screwed by the insurance industry as much as their patients are. The HMO's and other insurance companies are getting filthy rich off this scam.
Re:even better.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah it's so easy to win lawsuits, but Injured malpractice plaintiffs win before juries in only 23% of cases, and only 1.1% of medical malpractice plaintiffs who prevail at trial are awarded punitive damages. [centerjd.org]
This is what rich doctors would have you believe, when actually it's their anti-compettive practices that have driven prices up. They keep the number of doctors artificially low, so as to keep demand high. They also use licensure to force people to purchase mundane services from them instead of having the choice of cheaper alternatives. [lewrockwell.com] For example, you have to pay a dentist to clean your teeth, even if they don't do the cleaning themselves, their nurse does it. You talk about OBs, well if you've ever had a baby you would know that the doctor is usually only present for a couple of minutes, the nurses do everything. Guess who gets the bulk of the pay though...
Re:Puh-lease (Score:2, Interesting)
My experience as an attorney with personal injury cases has been that clients have no money. If they are severely injured or disabled, they don't have the cash available to pay for legal representation. So many people live paycheck to paycheck that if they get hurt in a car accident or by medical negligence that they are facing repos on cars, foreclosure on the McMansion, etc. I frequently have clients take less money than their case is worth because they need it so badly.
In addition, I do not want shitty cases. I do an investigation of every case that I take, because I cannot afford to spend the money on a case that may earn me bupkus. It costs approximately $15,000-$25,000 where I work to take a case through trial to verdict. I will take cases where my potential fee is less than that if I know that the case will settle (most do), but if it is a dog, I want nothing to do with it. I mentioned elsewhere that I do not do med mal cases. On the other hand, I know med mal guys who do plaintiffs work, and they operate on the same basis -- they do not want shit cases.
In addition, the area I live in has swallowed the insurance companies' propaganda hook, line, and sinker. The area is very GOP and very hardcore. I often joke that the juries, when deliberating about damages in a PI case, mention their Uncle Merle who "had 'is arm ripped off in a combine, and that plaintiff guy with the cervical disk problems don't look near as bad as Merle did after he done drug the tractor back to the barn with one arm before walking 8 miles to the hospital."
Does this type of system leave a foul taste in my mouth? Hell, yeah. The guys that are making money off of this are almost as bad as those habitual plantiffs.
However, I say this with the bias that I have never been sued by one of these rabid money grabbers.
Attorneys who make money representing plaintiffs are no more or less morally objectionable than doctors who make money off the sick and then sue the bejeezus out of the estates of people who died while under their care for cancer. I know a couple of guys whose practice consists of collecting debts for a medical practice called "Cancer Care Associates". It's really heartwarming work. At least the plaintiffs bar has to be successful to get paid. The doctors don't have to be successful.
Yeah, the system is screwed--on both sides of the equation.
I don't buy it. The system works great in the county where I live. The problem with Pennsylvania is largely confined to Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Elsewhere, it's just a money grab by doctors and insurers. The thing that is really funny to me is how many "regular" people are bitching about the lawyers, mouthing the insurance company party line, and not realizing that they are screwing themselves by throwing away the right to sue. They honestly think that it will make health care more affordable, but they are completely wrong. It'll just make insurance companies billions of more dollars while leaving vicitims of medical negligence with no recourse.
Re:Sounds like an insurance company line (Score:3, Interesting)
You think third degree burns requiring skin grafts take only 8 days to heal? I bet we could find enough people around here to scrape together $400,000 if you allow us to pour scalding hot coffee into your lap and cause third degree burns to your genitals. Still interested? I didn't think so.
Subvert the database (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sounds like an insurance company line (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's presume for a second it actually was the fault of the doctors. Presumably, he was the patient of one or two doctors in a large hospital. He sues and gets a couple million. Now he is a couple million richer (and his lawyer several million richer), but he doesn't have his legs back. Now the hospital is even more stretched for cash. The hospital can afford fewer doctors and nurses, can pay the competent doctors it has less (encouraging them to seek employment in private clinics) and their malpractice insurance costs sky-rocket to even higher. Now the hospital and it's patients are even worse off then before and someone else is going to lose his legs, or his arm or his life. Lot of good that lawsuit did, it made one double amputee moderatly wealthy, got some sleazy contingency lawyer a shiny new boat, cost some doctors who may or may not even be at fault their license, and cause more pain and suffering to the patients of the hospital. When did getting a lot of money become justice?
Damned if I'll rent to another lawyer (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope. I had one dirtbag lawyer as a tenant who caused me a bunch of trouble, screwed me out of a month's rent, and wouldn't vacate (I had sold the building and that was one of the conditions of the sale, since the buyers could tell just from talking to him what a pain in the ass he would be) until I paid him off. Kept quoting me 'laws' that either didn't exist or whose provisions he misstated. Not that I believed his lies, but he was clearly prepared to take them to court and lose just to delay the sale. He was worse than the tenants I found out were dealing drugs from my building (and there's long story of heartache in that incident). No more lawyers.
Re:even better.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Take this for example:
Down Syndrome, or Trisomy 21 [lpch.org] is a genetic disorder. The doctor couldn't give a baby down syndrome any more than he or she could turn the baby into a frog. If any doctor ever lost a suit alleging that the doctor caused a baby's down syndrome, it was because the doctor hired a terrible lawyer and either didn't understand Down Syndrome or couldn't explain it.
Again, this doctor did a lot wrong. This doctor was apparently operating without malpractice insurance which is just stupid. Don't say that we shouldn't live in a society where we have to have insurance -- that's nonsense. We place ourselves in the care of doctors who have the ability to do great harm and, when they do harm, the victims should be compensated. Malpractice insurance is a way of allowing for doctors that are not super-rich before they start practicing. Almost every private contractor carries insurance against liability and malpractice both for their protection and for the protection of their clients, and, really, if you value your life, health, or property you should never do business with a contractor that lacks the capacity to compensate you if he screws up.
More to the point in this case, though, this doc got horrible representation if he or she lost this case. If this child had some sort of mental defect leading to a low IQ, that would have been picked up a dozen or so times before he took his college boards. In civil cases, respondents are protected against frivolous lawsuits by a statute of limitations, most commonly dating a few years from the date of discovery.
The S.o.L. varies from state to state, but, for example, in georgia:
Linky [216.239.39.104]
These things tend to be pretty similar from one state to the next, and while I have no idea where you live, odds are a half-decent lawyer would have had this malpractice case thrown out of court before the first witness took the stand because (surprise) the plaintiff had no standing to make the claim.
This doctor hired a horrible lawyer, apparently, one who should never have passed a bar exam, and one who could be easily outfoxed by anyone with an internet connection and a enough intelligence to use google. If you got fired for hiring an IT professional who had never used a computer before, why would you blame your boss?
Law is an i
Lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
Does that just not make you want to scream? I go to the doctor when I hurt or when I have a difficulty that warrants it. If I dont WANT to go to the doctor, my complaint is probably not bad enough to warrant chasing down some insurance company over.
In addition, its just all about the deep pockets. Personal Injury attorneys I have come in contact with regularly screen and only take cases where the defendant has a large insurance policy they can rape.
Then it wasn't the flu... (Score:1, Interesting)
If the sickness responded quickly to antibiotics, then it wasn't the flu. Most likely a strep or mild staph infection of the throat, sinuses, upper respiratory... which *do* usually get "knocked out quick"... usually by the first day's worth of the antibiotics. The bad problem here is that people quit taking the antibiotics after maybe two or three days because they think they are cured, but there are still some bacteria left behind that will get stronger and more resistant. You need to take the full course of antibiotics to hammer down those, even if you must take them for a full week after you feel totally well, and not save the rest of the pills for the next time you feel sick.
Re:even better.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good Samaritan laws have protection in them (Score:3, Interesting)
I know quite a few doctors. They do well, but they should after what they have to go through in school and residency. They don't do that well. Your average GP is not driving a $100,000 car and owning a private Island. Hell, I doubt many brain surgeons are doing that. Most of them live in fairly average houses, drive nice, but not particularly ostentatious cars and have spouses that work just like everyone else.
Re:Puh-lease (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is a research, and it would be interesting to get a comment from both of you:
http://sihp.brandeis.edu/council/pubs/Medic
Also, this page: http://sihp.brandeis.edu/council/Malpractice(3-03
Re:Sounds like a Shyster line (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:From what I gather... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sounds like an insurance company line (Score:3, Interesting)
No kidding. I was on a jury (medical malpractice, no less) a few years back, with some fascinating people, including:
- The president of programming for Showtime (who gave us all copies of their remake of "12 Angry Men" at the end)
- The head of new technologies research for Citibank (who was pretty annoyed at that point that he couldn't get any funding for research on smart chip implementation because all the money was going into the Y2K bug)
- A supervisor in Customs at LAX (who, in spite of this being pre-9/11, had some great stories)
BTW, the guy's case was baseless, and we didn't get past the second question of the special verdict form. He was suing basically because he had no medical insurance and couldn't afford his doctor bills. Of course, if he'd sued his private practice doctor, the only one who made a legitimate mistake, he might have gotten somewhere... but instead, he sued the hospital doctors (presumably) because they had deeper pockets.
Re:Difficult? (Score:3, Interesting)
So why don't we have a Violence Against Men Act, since men have always made up the majoraty of victums of violence?
Re:Lawyers (Score:2, Interesting)
My only tale like this is being involved in a 4 accident sitting stationary at an intersection.
(im in
the accident instigator crunched horribly and wrote both cars off, then hit my car and another with the rolling momentum) i was the only bastard in there who *HAD* insurance, and m car was the biggest shitbox of the lot.
The guy's insurance was rejected because he was 0.06, i had to claim off my insurance, and get them to whomp his ass for recovery of costs.
Some real stats to consider (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.healthgrades.com/public/index.cfm?fu
Problem with malpractice trials. (Score:3, Interesting)
Because of this, few years back, the patience insurance in Finland was renowated in such way that patients can get compensated for malpractices and complications that occur during their care without any actual wrong doing by the doctor being proved.
Of course, if doctors do things intentionally wrong or are criminally neglicent, they can be held responsible in the courts, but this rarely happens.
Re:Lawyers (Score:3, Interesting)
Stories like yours make me shake my head in disbelief. I wonder sometimes if we might be better off without auto insurance. Just sue the guy who caused the accident and get rid of the middleman! Much of the time that's what you end up doing anyway.
I often think that insurance makes for bad drivers. If you are driving around with the thought in your mind that someone else will pay for your mistakes, are you not more likely to be careless?
Criminal penalties make a difference as well. I remember driving down to the tip of Baja California once, and being amazed at the courtesy and caution of the drivers with Mexican plates (excluding the bus and truck drivers, who drove like maniacs). Later I found that a moving violation there was a serious offense, and drivers took great care to avoid a citation.
And to round out this thought - I suspect safety features like airbags have the perverse effect of increasing the accident rate, since drivers believe they will be OK no matter how poorly they drive. (No facts to back this up...hey, it's /.! )
Re:even better.... (Score:2, Interesting)
> what ever on someone else.
Sorry, its not human nature. Its a social phenominum, largely driven by the US. I'm sure somebody will label me an "anti-semite", but part of this is because of the vocal minority of hard-line Jews who take a perverse pride in talking about how they've been oppressed and victimised for 5000 years. (I've got nothing against Jews, but whiners/whingers shit me).
Most of the "Self Help" books I have read (admittedly very few) seem to focus on "Take responsibility for your own actions", "You can take control of your life" (The famous Covey "7 habits") is a good example of this). As an Australia, I read this and think "duh". What its obvious to me comes across as a revelation to Americans.
Having said that, New South Wales (The state with Sydney as the capital) is now the second most litigious state in the world... beaten only by California. This is taking into account the number of civil actions per capita. Where Australia still lags the US is in the rediculous payouts that are awarded.
Millions of dollars for a brat who didn't get into University? How do you account for that? Lost potential income? Shit, maybe I should sue the government for lost revenue because the state school system didn't let me become a plastic surgeon to the stars?
(IANAL)
Ramblings (Score:1, Interesting)
IMHO
- The first problem is that people in the US feel that they have a 'constitutional right' to sue. This is not the case. The constitution indicates that those accused of a crime have a right to a jury trial - not that those who feel they have been wronged have a right to a jury trial for a lawsuit.
- The second is that malpractice has no specific definition. There is very little distinction between bad outcomes and bad medicine. Even in the case of 'bad medicine' people are unwilling to accept human error as a plausable reason for why something might have happened. Remember that everyone makes mistakes - no matter how much effort one puts into not doing so
... it is called being human.
- The third problem is that people feel that they have a right to massive amounts of money. Remember, this money usually comes from the doctors own pocket - malpractice insurance is usually carried at the minimum level, if at all these days. It is too expensive for the doctors to do anything else. Anyone who has talked with a lawyer knows that one of the first principals in a lawsuit is to go after the deep pockets. The problem here is that the doctors hire lawyers and accountants to protect their money and then declare backruptcy after a verdict and the plantiff is stuck with either nothing or the minimum required for the doctor to keep his/her license in that state.
- The fourth problem is the disparity in costs for the plantiff and defendant in a malpractice case. The plantiff can have no out-of-pocket costs, and pay based upon contingency. The defendant must hire a lawyer on an hourly basis, which is rarely reimbursed even if a case is frivolous.
We need a solution that solves these items - I have some ideas and will post them later - just ran out of time.Re:Cause of high insurance rates (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's a much better idea to perform some sort of triage on patients who aren't paying for their healthcare. Those who have no hope of recovery shouldn't receive much treatment beyond what is necessary for them to remain comfortable and pain-free until death. And we should provide some minimum standard of healthcare for everyone but not necessarily the latest and greatest. If we continue to do that, then no one will be able to afford healthcare soon. Costs will just keep rising and the burden will be shifted onto a smaller and smaller group of individuals who can afford it as fewer people will be able to afford insurance. Eventually this will collapse like all pyramid schemes.