Slashdot Log In
'They Can Sue, But They Can't Hide'
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Mar 07, 2004 08:54 PM
from the all-out-in-the-open dept.
from the all-out-in-the-open dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
'They Can Sue, But They Can't Hide'
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 1212 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Difficult? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday May 06 2005, @02:21PM)
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.
Re:Difficult? (Score:5, Insightful)
Think that's bad? Imagine how you would be treated as a lawyer! Once they find out you're a lawyer many doctors will run ten times as many tests as they otherwise would. It pays to keep your mouth shut (or even lie) about your profession.
even better.... (Score:5, Interesting)
eric
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.
Re:even better.... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://reignfx.penguinbrat.com/)
However, in the case you spoke about - my first guess is that the Doc's attorney did not put much into the case thinking it was blatant BS just like we do, but the plantiff's attorney didn't take that stance and probably bind sided the defense's attorney with stuff he did not expect...
There has to be some kind of plausable reason for something as dumb as this being victorious.
The Other Side (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://willdotcom.bl.../just_a_coincidence/ | Last Journal: Sunday September 05 2004, @07:19PM)
Maybe because the parent poster is lying. I mean, the statute of limitations on the tort probably already expired. (The kid's eighteen, after all.) The parent poster can reply with name of the case.
This isn't flamebait. I'm just annoyed at people who make quick, uninformed judgments. Normally, medical malpractice cases are extremely difficult to vindicate because the average jury, who just like you, hates malpractice lawyers, has to find by a clear preponderance of the evidence that something wrong happened. To convince a jury of this requires expensive medical expert testimony that is rebutted by the other side. The plaintiff has the burden of persuasion just like the prosecution in a criminal case.
Findings of guilt usually doesn't happen unless the doctor does something blantantly wrong and against medical protocol, such as leaving an instrument behind, amputating the wrong leg, or twisting a baby's head with forceps. Everything else is just too hard for a jury to understand and find guilt on.
Re:even better.... (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday February 06 2004, @08:07PM)
Consider also that there are localities in the US that award ridiculously high damages to plaintiffs in such cases. Often these are economically depressed areas, and the resulting high risk of practicing there means fewer doctors and a lower standard of care for everyone.
Trial lawyer associations argue that everyone should have the right to unlimited damages, but they fail to mention that unfair and extreme damage awards negatively affect care for everyone.
Large jury awards are just another form of wealth consolidation. One person (and a few lawyers) get rich and it comes out of everyone else's pocket in the form of higher health care costs.
Lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
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.
Re:Lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
The second of those, which was a relatively minor accident, happened less than a month after I'd finished a one-year course of treatment for injuries sustained in the first accident, which as a 30 - 40 MPH no-brakes rear impact.
In both cases, I had to retain a lawyer and sue. Why? Well, in the first case, the guy's insurance company simply didn't want to pay. The claim was open and shut, their client rear-ended my car at a stop sign without even touching his breaks (he was driving a lifted mini-truck that was so high the bottom of his bumper guards cut through the spoiler on the hatchback of my Mustang GT as the rear of the car was rolled up all the way to the backs of the doors). You couldn't ask for anything more clear-cut. The guy even admitted, right there on the spot, that it was his fault, and I had a witness who heard him say it.
Still, his insurance company was going to try and stiff for both medical bills and car repair. I wasn't even asking for anything beyond that. However, their refusal to even meet their obligation forced me to retain a lawyer and sue. When it was just about to go to court, they settled. They knew they didn't have a leg to stand on at trial. I got my car fixed. I got my body fixed, mostly. I still have lingering neck problem that will never completely go away. I have Advil for that. The lawyer got his cut above and beyond the cost of fixing me and my car. My attorney was, among other things, a personal injury lawyer, and he struck me as being an upstanding guy. He wasn't trying to cheat anyone, and all I was after was for the guy's insurance company to meet its legal obligation. If they had just done so at the outset, they would have saved themselves thousands of dollars in legal fees. That cost gets passed straight on to their policy holders, so if your insurance is too expensive, insurance company actions like that are one of the reasons why.
The second time I had to sue was because after the bright spark backed his truck up into my car and I went to file a claim with the trucking company's insurance company for the damage to my vehicle (medical wasn't too bad, but it did aggravate my neck condition a bit), they turned out to be an offshore insurance company in the Caribbean and they quite simply weren't going to pay. In fact, they had apparently never paid a claim to anyone, ever. It was basically a scam. So I had to sue the trucking company itself. What I eventually wound up doing, on my lawyer's advice, was to use my own collision coverage and uninsured motorist coverage to pay for my vehicle damage and medical expenses, and let my insurance company go after the trucking company for recovery.
So, while there are certainly sleazy ambulance-chaser PI lawyers out there, personal injury nevertheless remains an important area of law. Without a PI lawyer, I would have wound up paying at least the medical out of my own pocked in the first of those incidents, and it would have been very difficult to afford.
Re:even better.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:even better.... (Score:4, Funny)
(Last Journal: Sunday July 27 2003, @04:32PM)
The Good Samaritan Laws (Score:5, Informative)
There is probably a medical ethics law or something similar that you are thinking of.
[OT] Samaritans (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.slamb.org/)
As an AC mentioned, I don't think they were a horrible people, but there was a lot of mutual animosity between them and the Jews. There had been a recent incident involving defacing a temple, and so Jews were actually praying that Samaritans would not get eternal life. You can read the parable itself at Luke 10:30 [carm.org] and a good analysis here [cfchome.org]. It mentions why the priest and Levite were reluctant to help, and why the Samaritan would be as well. Yet of course the despised Samaritan does what the others would not.
I'm an atheist, but I like this parable. And it seems that most people neither understand the historical details nor understand that they can be the good Samaritan in their daily lives.
Re:even better.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a fucked if you do, fucked if you don't situation, but the other guy is fucking dead when the doctor didn't.
Or it coulda been two guys with a couple scratches (as head ons usually are...?). I hope the Doc's conscience is clear when he's sprawled out on the pavement and fading away and all the pussy doctors in the area take a hike just like him.
Re:even better.... (Score:5, Informative)
Good Samaritan Laws (enacted in every state in the USA) protect people who perform CPR and emergency care from lawsuits over injuries sustained during the care.
So if you are CPR-certified, and crack a heart attack victim's ribs after they consent* for you to perform CPR on them, they can't sue you for the cracked ribs.
Good Samaritan laws do not obligate anybody to help somebody in an emergency. Not helping somebody in an emergency is perfectly legal.
Btw, I am a law student, and CPR-certified.
*: You can obtain regular consent or implied consent. Implied consent is when a person is unable to consent (usually due to being unconcious) but a reasonable person would likely consent. Handy if somebody is choking on food but won't consent to the heimlich, because as soon as they pass out, you can perform rescue breathing/unconcious choking care on them.
Re:even better.... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. "99% of these lawsuits that people file against doctors that supposedly caused 'brain damage' to children when they were born are completly bogus." OR
2. "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."
The fact is that profit and greed by insurance companies have driven medical costs through the roof in this country, not lawsuits. There is not a single state in the U.S. where medical malpractice OR health insurance premiums have come down by $0.01 since the introduction of any tort "reform" measure.
The next time some doctor or insurance hack tells you some supposed horror story about having to pay millions of dollars because of what he/she considers to be a bogus "frivolous" lawsuit, ask him/her the following:
1. If you had a pay all this money, why didn't you go to trial and prove your case?
2. If they answer, "my insurance company made me settle," then ask them why they rolled over on their principles because some faceless insurance company told them to.
Then, when they get done bad-mouthing everyone they've seen in the last 20 years, ask them for the name of the case and the court it was in. Then, take an hour of YOUR time, go down to the courthouse and look through the case file for the true picture.
Don't take my word for it; go look for yourself. That's the beauty of our Constitution here in the U.S.A. and I would be extremely suspect of anyone who advocates a system that wants to take away your constitutional right to a jury trial, the right of access to the court system, and your right to a fair and impartial decision maker.
Re:even better.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Then why are medical insurance companies pulling out of Nevada [kvbc.com]?
Insuring doctors in a state with no medical tort reform is a net loss. The greedy insurance company would not pull out of a whole state unless that state were simply unprofitable. That seems to suggest that lawsuits have a lot to do with medical costs.
There is not a single state in the U.S. where medical malpractice OR health insurance premiums have come down by $0.01 since the introduction of any tort "reform" measure.
You are neglecting to mention that medical malpractice and health insurance premiums are shooting up in states that do not have any tort reform measure. The rate of growth in protected states is lower than that of unprotected states.
(The Nevada legislature enacted a reform measure, but malpractice lawyers and departing insurance companies are quick to point out that its constitutionality hasn't been determined, thus the standard "sky's the limit" policy remains the force driving out insurance companies)
Re:even better.... (Score:5, Informative)
Before a patient victimized by medical malpractice may file a lawsuit in Nevada District Court, the patient must submit a claim to the Medical Dental Screening Panel, consisting of six professionals - three doctors and three attorneys.
Before a patient victimized by medical malpractice may file a claim, another doctor must sign an affidavit under oath that medical malpractice occurred and caused injury to the patient.
In medical malpractice claims, Nevada has a loser pays system. If a patient victimized by medical malpractice loses at the screening panel, proceeds to court and loses at trial, the victim must pay the doctors attorneys fees and costs. Recent examples include awards against victims in excess of $100,000.
Nevada has over 4,000 doctors, 16,000 Registered Nurses, and more than 2,000 Licensed Practical Nurses. Every day, thousands of procedures (e.g., surgery, blood transfusions, medication administration, diagnoses) are performed in Nevada. In 2001, 219 claims were filed at the screening panel, 181 of which were filed in Clark County.
Finally, let's put this all into perspective:
The St. Paul insurance company paid out about $19.6 million in Nevada malpractice claims in the same year that it lost over $108 Million related to Enron: http://www.ntla.org/medmal/Exhibita.pdf
Last time I checked, St. Paul hasn't stopped insuring other businesses or pushed for caps on claims made by fraudulent businesses like Enron whose entire business plan was the corporate equivalent of supposed ambulance-chasing malpractice victims. That wouldn't go over too well in the boardroom; it's a heckuva lot easier to conjure up some smoke-and-mirror "crisis" targeted against individual claimants who have neither the corporate nor financial wherewithal to mount a unified front to defeat such nonsense.
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:even better.... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://baby.boondock.org/ | Last Journal: Friday August 04 2006, @11:41AM)
Tell me about it. I'm in a program with a certified nurse-midwife as my primary care provider. After 23 weeks of pregnancy, I haven't seen a "doctor" at all (which I'm fine with). However, I've already paid a deposit on my expected co-pay for the *doctor's* delivery charges... which I won't owe them until sometime in late June or early July.
Granted, they are charging me in advance because apparently the routine visits throughout the pregnancy are all packaged in with the delivery according to my insurance company, so they get *no* payment until the baby is delivered... and have some difficulty collecting if I up and deliver somewhere else. But no one has ever been able to explain to me why I'm paying for a doctor's services in a program where I don't actually see one.
Re:even better.... (Score:5, Informative)
As I understand it, the crisis started when a doctor who had only (insert amount here, I don't remember how much. Try about 3 million) coverage. He lost a malpratice suit. The jury awarded (I think hundreds of millions) in dammages. The insurance company paid the policy limit. The court objected and forced the insurer to pay way beyond the coverage plan. (I think it was a defective baby case). Due to this opening of the cap on insurance policies, insurers found they were charging rates for a (one or two) million policy, but had the liability of (a good part of a billion) in coverage. Needless to say they started to charge for (maybe 500) million policies instead of one or two because the court re-wrote the doctors policies. With a policy limit removed by the courts, we have the spiral of hit the deep pockets with lawsuits and charging for the big policies that the courts mandated. The mistake happened when a multi hundred million award was forced out of a several million policy. That broke the insurance system.
Any history buff want to help me fill in the blanks? Anybody want to prove me wrong?
RTFA (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Difficult? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/sinistertim101 | Last Journal: Saturday March 24 2007, @12:32PM)
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:Difficult? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Difficult? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.danhendricks.com/)
/kidding
I don't blame them (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.vems.co.nz/)
Re:Difficult? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, good? In other words, doctors will exercise more diligence and generally do things to avoid getting sued, namely screwing up. I think I'll tell them all I'm a lawyer, thanks for the good idea!
Re:Difficult? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday May 10 2004, @08:00PM)
Sounds like an insurance company line (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.barbieslapp.com/)
The injured (burned) plaintiff in this case, 79 year old Stella Lieback, was not driving her car. She was seated as the passenger in her grandson's parked car, holding the coffee cup between her legs while removing the plastic lid. The cup tipped over and poured the scalding hot coffee into her lap causing third degree burns.
Before claiming something is baseless, first look at all the facts.
Re:Sounds like an insurance company line (Score:5, Insightful)
It may be the case that some people believe serving on jury *duty* fulfills one of their obligations to society. If that's difficult to comprehend, think of it this way: those smart people who feel strongly that the typical juror is of inferior intelligence and excessively gullible should, if they are the smart ones, sit on a jury so that the decisions turn out according to their enlightened notion of justice. Isn't that what the smart people do?
Re:Sounds like an insurance company line (Score:5, Insightful)
I have served on three juries (including one as foreman). I could easily have "beaten the system" and gotten out of it, but I considered it my duty.
After all, if I wind up on trial for something, I don't want a jury of "12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty".
Re:Sounds like an insurance company line (Score:5, Informative)
How can you blame the doctor for this? The hospital and its procedures are usually to blame for these kinds of infections. If you've ever had any experience in a hospital, you'll know that outside of surgery, you see the doctor for a total of about 2 minutes during your entire stay, whereas the nurses, orderlies and residents disturbing you can drive you bonkers. Although its possible to be infected during surgery, I think its more likely to be infected by bacteria entering after surgery from the skin through the operative site. The instrumentation used during surgery is thoroughly sterilized and any hospital caught violating this procedure would be shut down by JCAHO immediately.
Also, us patients are as much to blame for the virulent staph infections. Staphylococcus Aureus is an extremely common bacteria, is frequently present on the surface of the skin, and is responsible for many common skin ailments such as boils, sties, abscesses and folliculitis (infected hair follical). What causes such a problem in hospitals is that the strains found there frequently don't respond to the standard round of antibiotics, and thus become extremely dangerous to high-risk patients (like heart-attack victims). The reason for these antibiotic-resistant strains? Primarily improper use of antibiotics. There are some basic simple rules about antibiotic usage that a huge section of society can't seem to follow:
- Follow all directions given by the doctor and pharmacy exactly (that includes dosage schedules).
- Take ALL of the antibiotics prescribed, even if you feel better
- Never save leftover antibiotics for later use
- Never take anyone elses prescription
These are not difficult rules to follow, but you'd be surpised at how many people refuse to do so. My own (extended) family members insist on taking antibiotics just until they feel better, and then saving the remainder for "next time." Time and again, I've explained that if they don't completely erradicate the bacteria, these antibiotics won't be very effective the next time. They just dismiss what I say as coming from a young "know it all." These same family members also tell us to go get antibiotics when one of our children has a cold. I've also tried to patiently explain that antibiotics do nothing to get rid of a virus, and that it doesn't make sense to treat for a potential secondary infection unless the patient has a history of such. They don't believe me.So, back to the guy who got the staph infection. Sue the hospital and not the doctor. Although keep in mind that it is just as likely he carried his own infection in with him, and that the infection only became serious due to his weakened condition.
I also hope that the doctors all lose their license and live a life of abject poverty and suffering.
It's also possible that doctors will just stop practicing medicine because of people with a chip on their shoulder like yours. How is that going to make you feel when you need a doctor and can't find one anywhere? Do you enjoy paying such high rates for medical insurance in part because of escalating malpractice costs?
You want to blame somebody for what happened? Fine. But unless you know EXACTLY where the infection came from and how, you have to consider it just as likely that this guy already had the infection when he came into the hospital, and it got much worse because his body could no longer fight it off.
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?
Re:Difficult? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Difficult? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://linuxathome.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday March 15 2005, @03:19PM)
True story:
I was at the medschool graduation ceremony of George Washington University 2 years ago. That year, the med school graduated about 150 students, and the law school graduated some 400-500+ students. The president of the university commented on this disparity as a joke and said something to the effect, "I hope there are enough MDs in the crowd to support the number of lawyers that we graduated." Jokes are funny because they always have some base of truth in them.
Re:Difficult? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.carotids.com/)
Should we get mad at the bunnies for running away when we walk through the field dressed as a hunters?
-=mode off=-
I actually take care of several lawyers in my practice. There is usually a big "gulp" of worry initially--they I kid about it on subsquent visits and we forget about it.
Most lawyers are educated people and can easily help make most medical decisions.
I say, "Hey, I am 75% sure this is what you've got... You want to try this treatment or would you rather run a few more tests? Test X and Y would make me 10% more sure of your diagnosis."
Then it is our decision about testing. If I miss that hidden rare zebra cancer... then it is both our faults.
Davak
Re:Difficult? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://hondje.net/)
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:5, Funny)
(http://n3rfed.blogs.com/)
Re:Difficult? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://stores.ebay.com/ABS-Titonka | Last Journal: Sunday November 18, @10:32AM)
Re:Difficult? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.slackbook.org/)
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:Difficult? (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Sunday June 08 2003, @10:05PM)
Really? What are you doing that exposes you to so many bacterial infections?
Most common ailments from which people suffer (most coughs and colds, the flu) are viral infections. Antibiotics don't have any effect on them whatsoever.
By taking antibiotics for those diseases, you're doing yourself no good, and probably hurting yourself. First, you're knocking out the population of healthy, symbiotic bacteria in your gut that aid digestion and do a number of other useful things for you. Second, by knocking down the healthy population of bacteria, you leave behind a fertile open ground for nasty bacteria to colonize. Then you need antibiotics, perhaps...
Please, I encourage you to consult a physician (or at least a veterinarian) before self-medicating further.
Then don't file frivolous malpractice lawsuits. (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday October 22, @04:01PM)
Lawsuits are, and have always been, a matter of public record. Perhaps people who abuse the system should consider this fact.
Sorry, no sympathy for those on the blacklist.
Re:Then don't file frivolous malpractice lawsuits. (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 14, @10:49PM)
Re:Then don't file frivolous malpractice lawsuits. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
No, the previous post said that lawsuits are matters of public record. If a doctor is sued, no matter what the outcome, anyone can go down to the courthouse and view the transcript.
Now, if you're saying that it's not fair that there's no web-searchable list of doctors that have had malpractise suits brought against them, why don't you start one?
Re:Then don't file frivolous malpractice lawsuits. (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 14, @10:49PM)
Disciplinary records aren't secret in MA (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
OFFTOPIC rely to sig. (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 03 2004, @06:02PM)
Income tax is not the sum total of all taxes. His statistics are valid enough for income tax, but that's hardly the whole story. The average working stiff pays almost nothing in income taxes; perfecly true. However this does *not* mean that the average working stiff pays no taxes. Most people pay the vast majority of their taxes in the form of payroll taxes. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, FICA, etc. Those are only the Federal taxes, of course. Local taxes (sales tax, property tax, telephone tax, electricity tax, gas (both methane and petrol) taxes, etc) are a hefty bite as well. Social Security alone accounts for a huge bite out of the average person's paycheck and is also one of the most regressive taxes in existance. Only the first $86,000 a person makes are subject to Social Security tax, which means that 100% of my income gets hit with Social Security tax, but less than .001% of Bill Gates' income is subject to SS tax. A politician who proposed leveling SS taxes would get my vote immediately and without reservation.
The upper 1% of the population pays around 33% of all tax money that goes to Washington. Yup, absolutely true. The thing is that the upper 1% has around 33% of the money. On a dollar for dollar basis they actually pay slightly less than the lower 50% do. Far from being overtaxed, the upper 1% are (assuming that everyone should pay an equal percentage of their wealth) slightly under taxed.
As for the writer's conclusion that we ought to consider limiting the franchise to people who pay X dollars in (watch his language here) *income*taxes* it sounds like he's just dying to establish a classic plutocracy. Those in power, now possessing exclusive voting franchise could quite easily define "income tax" to exclude incredibly large portions of society while increasing the various non-"income taxes" with impunity. Taxation without representation anyone?
On a practical note, I will point out that every single member of the elected Federal government, as well as every single member of the past 5 president's Cabinets, falls into the upper 1%. Most fall into the upper 1/10th of 1%. The economic elite are hardly underrepresented in government; quite the opposite really (side note: I refer to their income prior to becoming a member of government here). I personally would like to see just *one* person in the Federal government who falls into the "lower" 70%. I will observe that the Federal government (under past administrations as well as the current administration) seems quite content to emplace policies that primarially benefit the economic elite, while occasionally tossing a bone to the rest of the nation. What baffles me is that people keep voting for government by, of, and for millionares...
History has shown us that while voting requirements often sound good on paper they never really work in practice. Just like Communism, or lassie-faire capitalism, its an idea that simply does not work in the real world. Inevitably the best intentioned voter requirements become nothing more than a tool of oppression. In my own ideal fantasy world you couldn't vote unless you displayed a knowledge of the *facts* in current affairs. The difference between me and the person who wrote the article you reference is that I'm mature enough to know that my fantasy won't work in reality; he doesn't seem to have reached that point yet.
Re:Then don't file frivolous malpractice lawsuits. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://twentiesretirement.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday July 22 2004, @05:55PM)
Re:Difficult? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday June 13 2003, @02:34PM)
Re:Difficult? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 03 2004, @06:02PM)
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:Difficult? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://forums.hypography.com/)
Re:Difficult? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://127.31.33.7/)
This is what they want you to think (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Saturday October 26 2002, @11:59PM)
Right now there's a big battle between doctors and trial lawyers in regards to putting caps on damages regardless of how grossly negligent the doctor was.
Simply put, they want you to pick a side and this website and rhetoric about 'poor doctors' is a ploy to win the caps battle. Personaly, I refuse to take sides as both sides are losing propositions. A real solution would require regulating both doctors and lawyers and neither party wants that because that means less profit, thus little war of attrition.
The doctors (AMA) want me to give up my essential rights to sue for damages because they supposedly can't afford insurance.
The lawyers still want to be able to collect 1/3rd of my damages.
I think this situation shows a larger problem: people getting the shaft from two well organized and powerful lobbies. I'd rather see lawyers unable to collect so much from me and see medicine socialized/single-payment/regulated so I can actually see a doctor now and again. In the meantime its the wealthy vs the wealthy at the expense of you and me.
Beat them at their own game (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/k4_pacific | Last Journal: Tuesday May 25 2004, @10:16PM)
Re:Beat them at their own game (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.oculon.org/)
doc's pay a ton in malpractice insurance and losing one of these cases is desastating. There are tons of patients that show up with a law suit on their minds because they
a) are just that type of person
or
b) they can't pay for the service and are looking for a way to cover their bills (believe me, this happens).
just like anyone else doing business in this world, doctors have to protect themselves.
Re:Beat them at their own game (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.gh-sts.com/HOWTO | Last Journal: Tuesday November 01 2005, @09:39PM)
Perhaps someone could get the ridiculous malpractice claims under control and spend a little more time critically evaluating the situation when one comes up?
Things like this exist because jobless wonders with no skills and no future see an easy out and sue the doctor for some assinine bullshit, then ignorant juries award this sinister behavior when crooked lawyers trump things up around the "poor, suffering victim". If you didn't have as many assholes out there pulling bullshit cases and getting exhorbitant "awards", the people with legitimate claims wouldn't be more than an afterthought to professionals who know what they're doing.
It's just another example of how the "legal" profession makes its money by ruining everyone else. Legalized thugs.
Re:Beat them at their own game (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.carotids.com/)
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
Re:Beat them at their own game (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://taltos.pha.jhu.edu/~tamas/)
Re:On the other hand... (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 03 2002, @12:06AM)
I for one am for it. Flame away!
Cause of high insurance rates (Score:5, Informative)
High insurances rates aren't being caused by malpractice lawsuits; they're being caused by the stock market tanking. The medical insurance companies' holdings took a massive beating and they're raising rates to compensate.
States(like Florida) that have passed caps on damages for malpratice have insurance premiums just as high as the rest of the nation.
Tort reform is about making screwups a low, predictable cost of doing business and lawyers have become convienient scapegoats for those who would like to avoid responsibility for their actions.
In the end, the biggest(and highest profile) awards inevitably end up being against companies and people that repeatedly ignored the problem. It's funny that for a readership that decries so many abuses by corporate America, an awful lot of Slashdoters seem willing to castrate one of few remaining ways an individual person can hold a corporation accountable.
Re:Cause of high insurance rates (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.carotids.com/)
Working in an ICU, I can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a day on tests that were not even available 20 years ago. I can spend an equal amount of money on medicines that were not around 2 years ago.
Although I would love to blame increasing insurance rates on the lawsuits, it is really that our society demands that people receive the best possible medicial care -- and that best possible medical care gets more and more expensive everyday.
Davak
Re:Cause of high insurance rates (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.carotids.com/)
- The average person is older. Older people need more medical care -> more money.
- The average person is fatter. Fatter people meed more medical care -> more money.
- People that used to die from severe disease (HIV, pulmonary hypertension) can now be kept alive using expensive medications and treatments -> more money.
We can't just blame the damn lawyers for everything...
Davak
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.
Re:On the other hand... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Puh-lease (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.everythin...pl?node=mr100percent | Last Journal: Thursday September 27, @02:22AM)
IN real life, there ARE patients who wind up sueing every doctor in town. There are patients who try to scam painkillers off of doctors, there are patients who try to forge perscriptions for Morphine at pharmacies.
Yes, some patients do have real legitimate cases, but if they wind up sueing more than 2 doctors, do you want to take them in as your patient? Why don't you pay thousands a month in malpractice insurance, and let me know what you will do. (No, I'm not a doctor, they're just in my family).
This all depends on the doctor. I'm sure he'll call up his friend Dr. Phil and ask why the lady was sueing him. If she was stepping on every word he said in his own office, then I'm sure the doctor won't take the case, as is his prerogative. You can't sue for abandonment if the doctor won't even take your case. Besides, the lawsuit record has been availible for some time, I could go online and search the plaintiff lists to see if my neighbor sued anyone recently. So can landlords and the rest of the world.
You can't see the same info about them... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 14, @10:49PM)
Because all doctors are the same person, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.college-paintball.com/)
You have *NOTHING* to gain from talking. If you have a choice between two courses of action, and one will do you no good and may or may not cause you harm, and the other will also do you no good but definitely won't cause you harm, which course of action do you choose?
I also suspect that even if doctors maintain such a blacklist, they're probably also smart enough to filter out people from the blacklist on a case-by-case basis.
Either way, the REAL solution to this problem is to make malpractice covered by a patient's insurance company. If your doctor screws up, your insurance company pays the malpractice claim - that way people can choose to pay for the amount of malpractice coverage they want, instead of forcing everyone to pay for those who abuse the system.
Re:Puh-lease (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.carotids.com/)
The simple fact is that people abuse the system.
Some doctors abuse the system, get caught, get sued, and get punished. If it happens too often, his/her license is removed.
Some patients abuse the system, too. They use a shotgun approach and attempt to sue and sue and sue. By using lawyers that only collect fees for winning, these patients hurt the doctor and the lawyer side of "medicine."
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.
The old system of doctor and patient loving and respecting one another is leaving... and that's part of the problem.
As I was reading this thread a patient called me at home. He's a very difficult case, and his family are salt of the earth people. I care for them... so I let them call me directly, on a weekend, when I am not on call. I gave them potential life-or-death advice on the phone tonight... if I am wrong, they could easily sue me.
However, they never would. Because we have a true patient-doctor relationship that is so rare these days. I care for them... and they respect me--with my knowledge and my faults.
Yeah, the system is screwed--on both sides of the equation.
Davak
Exactly! (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't have both ability to sue the provider for damages and be his friend. The whole concept of "Nothing personal, it's just business" serves as a good deterrent on these patrnalistically inclined providers of the service.
Re:Puh-lease (Score:4, Insightful)
My least favourite reasoning.
"... can we leave the editorials out of the submissions?"
Errrr, there'd be no point in the submission without the 'abuse of database' angle, agree with it or not. That's why it's Your Rights Online, the 'right' to patient care (quotation marks not required in all countries.)
"IN real life, there ARE patients who wind up sueing every doctor in town."
They leave a trail and represent an extreme case. Are these doctors differentiating, databasing only the extreme cases? Little chance.
"There are patients who try to scam painkillers off of doctors, there are patients who try to forge perscriptions for Morphine at pharmacies."
Irrelevant and ad hominem, associating medical malpractice claimants with scammers and crooks. Cheap shot and statistically meaningless.
"Yes, some patients do have real legitimate cases, but if they wind up sueing more than 2 doctors, do you want to take them in as your patient?"
Ah well, now we come to the crux of it, don't we? Apparently it doesn't matter if these people were multiple victims or sued multiple practioners in a single incident, screw the Hypocratic Oath and them again by denying care.
"Why don't you pay thousands a month in malpractice insurance, and let me know what you will do."
Chaulk it up to the cost of doing business, continue earning my six figures and try to remember the reasons for entering medicine instead of auto repair. See Hypocratic Oath above. BTW, where does the money for that insurance premium comes from if not increased patient billings? They're the ones really paying for the scammers, and now the legitimate victims get to pay again by being denied care.
Re:My knee-jerk reaction... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.ironwolve.com/ | Last Journal: Friday July 09 2004, @12:59AM)
And they lived happily ever after..
Truth is, while there are scum lawyers, there are also lawyers protecting our rights, EFF and every other non-profit group has lawyers.
I'd rather see some reform, but can you imagine the lawyers on that aspect.
Re:My knee-jerk reaction... (Score:5, Funny)
i give doctors a little credit (Score:4, Insightful)
This is absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
Two weeks ago, the MA legislature passed a bill called Taylor's Law, that orginally called for putting reprimands of doctors online. The doctor lobby got that provision shot down, arguing that it might stop doctors from freely talking to the board.
If patients in MA can't find out who the problem doctors are, I don't see why doctors should be able to see the names of patients who sued.
Furthermore, membership should definitely be required to add people to the list, otherwise, any quack who gets justifiably sued can easily add his or her patients to the list out of spite.
Re:This is absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://irc.macintosh.efnet.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday July 04 2004, @07:33PM)
Simple answer... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds reasonable to me (Score:3, Insightful)
2 sides to every story (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://jeshu.com/)
I don't blame the doctors (Score:3, Insightful)
Doctors are easy targets. They have money and there is no penalty for sueing them and failing because it's hard as hell to prove a patient is just taking pot shots. I'm glad to see that doctors now have recompense against people who are just trying for a quick buck.
Blame the Doctor (Score:5, Informative)
My mom was misdiagnosed with cancer. She had chemotherapy and a hysterectomy(no more kids), but she's always suspected she was misdiagnosed. Now, 25 years later, she's have numerous and serious health problems related to the treatment that have nearly cost her life.
And while it pissed her off, she was willing to just 'get over it'.
Until she found the same doctor misdiagnosed DOZENS of women and had them undergo the same treatment. And nearly all of them are having the same health problems my mom is having now.
But hey, I guess that sort of thing just 'happens.'
Re:I don't blame the doctors (Score:5, Informative)
No. But it still COSTS MONEY to defend the minor cases. That's the problem on the legal side.
If Joe Patient sues me because he had to have his ingrown toenail removed again, I now have to defend myself, even though the case is trivial. So my insurance blows 10K+ defending this trivial case, and I've got to pay more insurance.
When I was in Med School in Alabama, we had two lectures from Lawyers, one from a Plaintiff's lawyer and one from a Defense Lawyer. Both stated that in Alabama, only 20% of cases brought to trial in the state ended in Plantiff Verdicts. So, consider the amount of money spent defending the other 80% that went to court and the innumerable others that were settled out of court and it becomes easier to see the scope of the problem. It's one of the reasons that some in the medical field are pushing for a Medical Court or Medical Approval Board that deems whether a malpractice case can/should be pursued.
Lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~LittleLebowskiUrbanA/journal/ | Last Journal: Thursday March 30 2006, @06:26PM)
Way to break the American medical system... (Score:3, Insightful)
And people who go to the ER for something a PCP should be taking care of just drive up expenses and costs for everybody...
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?
Extorsion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Texas already passed Proposition 12 [texascivil...roject.org] last year capping jury awards for non-economic damages in malpractice cases to $250,000. So parents whose children have the misfortune of needing expensive medical care must be even more wary.
I guess these Texas doctors are saying, "Oh, you'll pay a pretty penny for care. But don't even think about holding our professional accountable for incompetence."
If these doctors believe there's nothing wrong with this list, I'd like to see a list of doctors who are members of that organization.
non-economic (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.ocean7motel.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 07 2007, @07:50AM)
if malpractice is real, the lifetime 'costs' of taking care of the incident is covered, plus a maximum of 250k for pain and suffering..
Bad checks on the wall..... (Score:5, Insightful)
People sue at the drop of the hat nowadays....and the lawyers are waiting in the shadows.
A person will NOT be denied life threatening health care...
but what if someone with a history of lawsuits(frivilous or not) wants high risk surgery from you? Would you be willing to bet your career and finanicial well being on them?
Information is freedom, right?
not all cases are clear cut (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.oculon.org/)
not all cases are black and white, and there are definitly some patients who are more likely to sue than others (especially those who have sued before). Malpractice insurance is so expensive these days, losing a suit like this can get your coverage yanked effectively putting you out of business. While no doctor wants to sit there and screen patients based on the likelyhood of them suing, it is a reality that is part of the medical world today.
Yeah it sounds horrible in the case where the doctor really f'd up, but tons of malpractice cases are bullshit and really put a strain on the doctor's ability to do business.
If I was a doctor (in a non-emergency case), hell yeah I'd want to know if a patient has sued before and under what circumstances because this is about protecting my livelihood.
Still better than Poland. (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Wednesday August 18 2004, @07:52AM)
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.
And what about lawyers... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe they should sue programmers... (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.mightyware.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday November 08, @10:18PM)
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?
Re:Maybe they should sue programmers... (Score:4, Insightful)
If a programmer was contracted to write software that affects your *health* and they botched it, then yes, they should be held accountable in a civil court of law.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.catering-connection.com/)
Who's to blame? (Score:5, Insightful)
If a treatment has a 80% chance of working, and 5% chance of killing you is it a mistake to recommend it? What if you'd die anyways, just 5 years down the road? You'd have 80% chance at life. I think most of us would agree that it's not a mistake to try it. If a patient dies because of that treatment - was it a mistake? I could see only one problem - that's if/when the doctor did not explain the odds/risks.
I see way too many people suing because they need to be protected from themselves.
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://zoeshire.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 31 2002, @05:12PM)
Hospitals are like assembly lines. They try to push through the maximum number of cases to increase the billables. This pressure to perform increases the chance of something going wrong.
I work in a hospital. The number one concern in the hospital is not the welfare of the patient, although that is what we claim; it is the ability to bill for the services provided to the patient. Now, our hospital really *is* concerned about the welfare of our patients, but that doesn't reduce the waiting time to see the doctor, nor the quick manner in which the doctor performs services.
What most people overlook, though, is that medicine is an imprecise science. Many things are easy to diagnose and treat, but many others are transient, or poorly described by the patient (doctors rely heavilly on patient information), or even just strange. Plus, you have to consider that patients are constantly asking for drugs the pharmaceutical companies tell them to ask for, many of which are poorly-understood (by everyone, not just the doctors and patients).
It's not easy to be a good doctor in todays society, in which people are viewed as "consumers." But that doesn't excuse the doctors for slipshod treatment.
Malpractice Insurance (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.deadgobot.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday September 05, @10:26AM)
The cost of malpractice insurance is incredible. A close relation pays something on the order of $50K/year in insurance; this in a rural, close-knit community in a low-risk practice (as compared to, say, pediatrics).
This isn't "anti-consumer" behavior, it's defensive medicine. A doctor that doesn't practice because he's sick of being sued every other week for bogus cases isn't doing anybody any good.
I wonder if all the "programmers" who rail on Slashdot would be willing to take responsibility for every bug they write? To the extent that they have to buy liability insurance in case somebody uses their shitty program to do something important? No, of course not--that's why all those licenses for "Open Source" half-assed hacks are littered with "Yeah, I wrote this, but if you use it for something important, IT'S NOT MY FAULT, NUH-UH, I'M JUST A FAT SLOB PROGRAMMER, FNORD! *snort snort*" But you'll moan about doctors that can (and do) make mistakes. Yeah, consistency sure is an overrated attribute.
This is what the internet is for! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.lawhacker.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 26 2003, @09:14AM)
Sometimes you can find out by discovery the patient's prior litigation history, and other times they lie. The bad ones, unsurprisingly, lie. Extensive investigation can disclose the lie, which pretty much nails the case, but when you don't, you have been stung, and the "professional patient" scores another scam.
For the most parts, doctors are honest and honorable, did as well as they could, and patients are honest and honorable, and were grievously harmed. Sometimes the injury was due to neglgence, other times not. Accordingly, the record of the existence of a lawsuit doesn't tell the entire story, not ever. But it is very, very useful information.
As a patient, you want to know if a doctor has a long history of being a defendant. As a doctor, you want to know if a patient has a long history of being a plaintiff. It may make your decision, or not, but it is information you would rather have at the outset of a relationship than not.
NONE OF THIS, however, is private information. While details of medical history are for the most part confidential, the existence of a plaintiff and defendant and a lawsuit are public record. It is just that clerk of court information isn't readily available to everybody.
It may not surprise you to know that for years, consortiums of plaintiff and defense attorneys have kept databases of expert witnesses, plaintiffs and defendants. The fact that the internet has made this information much cheaper and more readily available is, in my view, a very good thing.
Once again, the truth shall set you free.
The question is how the information is used. That is the issue.
Free Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~nurb432/ | Last Journal: Friday August 27 2004, @03:24PM)
Keep in mind the paitents can also create a web page of 'bad doctors'...
Funny how stats don't back up doctors arguments (Score:5, Informative)
I've had arguments with doctors I know who take a highly visceral reaction to malpractice suits and jury awards. Nearly every one of them rails against what they perceive as a litigious US culture, and speaks with unquestioned confidence about how lawsuits are:
- driving up insurance costs
- unfairly assuming medical perfection
- making it unattractive or impossible to practice medicing in the US
What I find amazing is the fact that NONE of the statistics support any of these positions. According to two recent studies - one by the AMA and the other by the Harvard Public Policy school (?, I believe the Harvard Medical Practice Study) - both found that:
- malpractice, at least as defined by negligence, is fairly common
- of those with valid claims, only about 1% actually bring suit against a doctor
- of those who bring suit, only 1% are successful
This means that 1/100 of a percent of incidents of malpractice actually result in an award. Then you have the fact that the review committees in every case are made up of doctors and professionals, the act that an attorney who doesn't think a case is worth his effort or will reach an award won't even bother PURSUING the case, etc.
I'm also reminded of another study conducted in NY a few years back. If I remember correctly the study found that of all malpractice claims in the state less that 10 doctors were responsible for nearly 50% of the cases. Why were they practicing? Because the medical review boards hed declined to suspend their licenses for the incidents. These are people like the guy who operated on the wrong side of his patients skull, the guy who carved his initials into his patients abdomens etc.
You would think that after 30 years of schooling doctors - SCIENCISTS - would be intelligent enough to seek actual EVIDENCE to support their absurd claims; even the AMA disagrees with them! You'd think that GOOD doctors (and there are many) would be tired of paying exorbitant fees to subsidize the negligence of their incapable colleagues. You'd also think they'd be intelligent enough to bother examining the various mergers in the insurance industry and price increases in the face of decreased competition before leaping to absurd claims regarding jury awards and civil suits.
Bottom line: I'd like to see a comparable database of every doctor in the United States with every incident of potential malpractice, lawsuits, complaints, or peer review comprehensivlely outlined and available to the public. I'd like to see doctors held to a national standard of quality, put on suspension when there actions merit it, and suspended when they cross a threshold like ANY OTHER PROFESSION (say hello to the Bar). Will we see these things in the near future? No, because doctors have no interest in policing themselves and facing up to the truth of the situation.
The whole thing just makes me ill.
-rt
Tragic, but what'd you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
We want a perfect medical system where mistakes are minimized as much as possible, which lawsuits will encourage. But the cost adds up in terms of the risk that this system exposes individual doctors to--basically, being sued out of business. Every doctor will make a mistake at some point in his/her career, and that mistake might cost him/her everything.
Strangely, though, the availability of insurance screws this up. Those huge punitive awards are meant to pressure doctors not to screw up, but since virtually every practicing doctor has insurance, the cost of a lawsuit is spread over all of the doctors in terms of high insurance premiums. Since the pressure isn't specifically directed to punish the doctor that screws up (more so than any other doctor), its impact is limited.
And actually, those huge damage amounts are also a side-effect of insurance. You can't impose a $50-million judgement on a doctor who might be worth $1-3 million or so. Juries get a lot more open to imposing huge awards when they realize that the direct payee of the award is a faceless insurance company. Of course, everybody gets hurt on the back end, but that rarely occurs to anyone.
Honestly, it makes a lot more sense to cap/eliminate punitive awards in these cases, and to impose mandated penalties on doctors who lose malpractice cases: revoke medical licenses, ban from practice for a specified period. It's not perfect, but it won't end up being as expensive as the current mechanisms.
They are already going... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.linux.org.uk/diary)
Remember the problem with central planning is not usually quality but inefficient allocation of resources. I might have to share a doctors waiting room with such "horrors" as poor people. I might effectively pay a little more if I choose to see a doctor privately 'right now', but that is a lot better than having someone swiping my credit card before he'll scrape me up after an accident.
In defense of Doctors (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately this leads to many trials that are unwarranted and yet the parents still win. Now you almost have to leave the state if you want to have a baby.
Doctors need some protection (Score:5, Insightful)
It is nice to say that a doctor should treat everyone and not discriminate against lawsuit-happy patients, but that is just not possible. A physician will not be able to stay in business if he or she picks up too many patients like that.
Another thing - If doctors can't pay for malpractice insurance, they can simply stop performing risky procedures or treating patients who have uncertain prognoses. But then who will care for the patients who only have a small chance of recovery? Will a doctor want to risk having the patient die and then having the family sue?
I love it. (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://thepandablog.com/)
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.
It makes a lot of sense... (Score:4, Insightful)
While there are certainly people with valid complaints and suits, in my experience the system is so abused that this is a sad but logical outcome of years of frivolous suits.
Cuts both ways (Score:3, Interesting)
Why shouldn't this be available? (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.dimse.com/)
Every detail of my professional life, including my home address, any criminal arrests or convictions, lawsuits or disciplinary actions, is required by Florida law to be online.
http://ww2.doh.state.fl.us/irm00profiling/searchf
If I get arrested for DUI (not convicted, just arrested) I would have to undergo a years-long period of intensive intervention and probabtion, or I would lose my license.
If I have to undego all this, why shouldn't everyone be forced to undergo this sort of scrutiny???
Suck it up, people!
Steve
Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
Darl McBride Doctor (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.perlworks.com/ | Last Journal: Monday January 06 2003, @05:06PM)
Also, Remember the lady that was supposedly stampeded at a Walmart sale around Christmas? Well it turns out that she has been pulling that stunt on several occasions and reaping a settlement each time. Would you like to treat her as a Doctor?
There are, it seems people that are born to sue.
The creation of this list is just a defensive reaction against are increasing litigious society.
Treat your doctor as he would treat you. (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://spiritraveller.blogspot.com/)
One-Dimentional lawsuits (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.dreamops.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 02 2005, @10:05AM)
And it's nice to know you're adept at expressing a biased, one-sided comment that absolutely destroys any credibilty you had in posting on this very complex topic of doctors and lawsuits.
Preliminary Hearings (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://gaijinsamurai621.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday January 16 2005, @10:46PM)
The root of the evil (Score:3, Insightful)
The patient needs some responsibility as well (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday July 31 2006, @10:40AM)
Once it was clearly labeled wrong and the other time it was the wrong strength medicine in a correctly labeled bottle.
I recognized the difference in both cases. In my health care, I am the final barrier to a mistake being made.
So, are we saying that I should be sueing the pharmacy, even though I never took any of the wrong pills?
How about when I had my first bone marrow biopsy done? I still limp on that hip when a pressure front comes thru (10 years later). Apparently the doctor knicked something when the probe went thru. Should I have sued for that?
I got the diagnosis of cancer from that test, and they were able to save my life because of it. Was the trade of limping worth my life?
Common sense is needed here.
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.
very reasonable (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.penguinma...ovideos.php?source=7)
What about (Score:3, Insightful)
As a patient... (Score:4, Insightful)
In my case, the surgeon performed the wrong procedure on me. He simply didn't read the orders correctly and screwed up.
Happily, it wasn't a kidney or leg that had to come out. But I can tell you that it put me through a lot of pain, left permanent damage, and was just a huge crappy event in my life.
Being young at the time (under 20), I was stupid and didn't sue. Should have. This guy had no real right to practice. I'd be happy if he couldn't afford his malpractice insurance. This guy shouldn't have been in the business, and it would have been good for EVERY ONE of his patients if I sued his ass off. Why anyone would want to keep this guy in the business is beyond me.
So don't tell me about doctors needing relief. I have several friends who are MDs, and they're all doing just fine and have little to complain about. Perhaps it's only the bottom feeders who have this problem.
After all, there are many lousy doctors out there. Just ask any doctor.
Jumping to conclusions-the only exercise you get? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://4sure.co.nz/)
US doctors are in it for the MONEY - not the PATIENTS. Hell, my father was part of an on-going program (begun in 1974 IIRC) at Brown University to teach 4th and 5th year med students "Balint Medicine" which is basically about developing the doctor-patient relationship - because US doctors are so poor at it.
Remember - in the litigious culture of the USA frivolous lawsuits abound - and a malpractice suit effectively destroys a doctor's livelihood.
So, you're working in an industry where you deal with sick people, and those people die. So what? People die. And if you help ease the suffering of 99.9% of them, and 0.01% are accidentally hastened to their demise - so what?
This is probably gonna cost me Karma - but I don't care: It's about time for a reality check, and that reality check is that doctors are SELDOM to blame for someone dying.
People think surgery is "safe" - but the fact is that anaesthetics is an art more than a science, and people can die simply by being anaesthetised - and IT'S NO ONE'S FAULT!
One of the strange-but-true-facts is that in New York in the 70's, when doctors went on strike for a period, the deathrate actually DROPPED.
By and large, medical misadventure is more common than negligence, and accidents happen - which is a good reason to be hospitalised in the firt place!
Health care in the USA (and in other western cultures like New Zealand, where I am from) is of a very high quality - but the big problem is that the cost of administering medicine is obscene.
Did you know that triple-heart by-pass is one of the most common surgeries in the USA? At a cost of around $50,000 (at least) for each one. Now, I don't know about you, but I think a country can't afford to practice medicine like that.
Back to the lawsuit issue: my Dad was (erroneously and mistakenly) sued for mal-practice by a stupid woman whose husband died. Needless to say, the suit failed, but I remember my Dad being more worried about that than anything else in his career which spanned nearly 40 years of general practice and university teaching.
And think about this: do you really want to be cared for by a doctor who is being consumed by worry about a pending lawsuit? No - I didn't think so.
FYI, when we lived in Rhode Island, my Dad didn't even have a full practicing certificate because his NZ qualifications were Mb.CHb, Dip. Obst., FRNZCGP, and FRCS, but because he wasn't an "MD" he could only have a "teaching certificate" where they dealth with real and simulated patients.
Anyway, the malpractice insurance for his "limited" licence was more per week than the ANNUAL malpractice insurance he had in New Zealand.
Just something to think about.
How about... (Score:3, Insightful)
Subvert the database (Score:3, Interesting)
Give me a fucking break! (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.angelfire...epublican/index.blog | Last Journal: Thursday July 27 2006, @12:00AM)
Doctors are losing lawsuits because so many people in the jury pool know someone personally who has endured a medical error. In my family, I know of at least two. My great grandmother got a peritoneal infection because doctors left her abdomen packed with gauze after operating on her intestines. My mother was allergic to codeine, she advised her doctor of this, when the pain from cancer was too much for her to take, she asked for a pain releiver. This doctor went on to proscribe a pain reliever to her that contained codeine.
Neither my mother nor my great grandmother sued. I would have. If that means that I'd end up on some "list" for being a "troublemaker" so be it. In the end I bet I'd get better treatment because the doctors know that if they don't cross every "t" and dot every "i", I'm going to complaing. If a lack of awareness on their part causes me harm, they'll find themselves in court.
You want to fix this problem? Make it easier to revoke the medical licenses of doctors who are hurting people.
LK
Doctors DO cause problems (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.stevekallestad.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday May 31 2007, @03:02AM)
Malpractice lawsuits would not be so lucrative if there were not egregious errors being made. Have you heard of Doctors amputating the wrong limbs? Have you heard of Doctors prescribing medication that patients were alergic to? My own wife's OB prescribed her BIRTH CONTROL accidentally when she was 5 months pregnant! (Thank goodness I asked the pharmacist for instructions when I picked up her perscription!)
Doctors make mistakes, yes. Many Doctors get sued for small mistakes that cause little harm, yes. But there is no clear place to draw the line. When I deploy software, we go through every possible scenario to insure a smooth deployment. We even further our efforts when it's a key deployment either for a large amount of end users, for an important end user community, or for a big dollar client we're afraid of pissing off. When you are dealing with human life, similar efforts should be made. When you prescribe potentially lethal medication, a certain amount of double checking is in order. When you have a patient cut open, it stands to reason that you will count your instruments before and after the procedure to make sure nothing is left inside. It stands to reason that you would check the open body cavity for any contaminants before re-sealing it. Doctors become complacent in their day to day jobs and that simply is not acceptable. The only thing to keep them in check is the potential of a malpractice lawsuit.
Frankly, I'd rather be on the list then off of it. At least then, I would be sure that a certain amount of effort would be made to ensure that I would not sue.
Some real stats to consider (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.healthgrades.com/public/index.cfm?fu
rights vs. privledges (Score:3, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Saturday August 11, @10:40PM)
Exactly who's "rights" does this database infringe upon? How is it any different than similiar databases set up in states like New York that list all doctors, their certifications, where they trained, and if they've been sued or not? Oh yea, THAT's OK, because it's easy to shit on doctors because we can always sue them if they gripe about it.
Re:rights vs. privledges (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.edgeio.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 09 2005, @10:42AM)
In one of the cases listed, the hospital knew the doctor was dependent on painkillers and still let him operate. Would you have him operate on you because this system meant someone decided it wasn't worth the risk to sue or complain about him?
It's different, because a doctor can easily cause significantly harm to you if he's incompetent or not doing his job right.
If the database only returned information about people who have sued and LOST several times, it would have been less of a problem. As it stands, it's a danger to public health.
Problem with malpractice trials. (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
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.
You Americans don't cease to amaze me... (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday February 24 2004, @03:59AM)
Then you develop this attitude where nobody cares about damn anything except for himself, his privacy and his own pocket. As mentalities break barriers of race, religion, neighborhood or whatever else, doctors, pharmacists, nurses and other medical staff are not immune.
Then you give a whole new meaning to the word "Sue" by building a whole industry around suing sidewalk engineers after you slipped on a bannana. A law industry that promptly regards the end-user's responsibility, whatever the case may be as sheer ZERO.
On top of that, you build a bizzare insurance industry that capitalizes on 2 things:
1. Punishing the MAJORITY of the doctors for the stupid mistakes that those [few] who don't give a damn, are stupid, or are just plain human do.
2. Punishing the MAJORITY of the public for the greedy, senseless, I-did-something-stupid-so-gimme-yer-money-lawsuit filing assholes.
If you polarize the world enough, you'd have two very extreme possibilities:
1. You will have doctors that make mistakes but mostly do their job and make your life better
or
2. Unless you're so rich you don't bother counting smaller-than-5-figures-sums-of-money, you have either very expensive or very inexperienced doctors at your disposal, which make just SLIGHTLY LESS mistakes, and which pay you (probbably less than you overpay in the first place) if they DO make a mistake.
So collectively (by not using your electoral power to limit the damage which both dope-smoking-doctors and trigger-happy-lawsuiters can do), you're kicking your best doctors, your healthcare and your own tax-paying public [read: yourself] in the teeth, in the name of those who got hurt by one of the aforementioned parties for the benefit of some lawyers and insurance agents.
I'm not anti-American, I really respect America for its good sides, but as an outsider, I'm looking at how you all collectively screw each other over, and as objective as I can or cannot be, you're dumb.
just fighting back (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://web.lemuria.org/)
You know, some people would prefer to spend more time actually doing the line of work they chose than in court. Doctors are among the most-often sued professionals, and the majority of cases don't have anything even resembling credibility.
Abbreviations on patients' notes (Score:3, Funny)
There was a bit of a brouhaha about this a while ago, when patients got the right to see their own records.