With frivolous lawsuits the doctor can countersue for scizzor or sponge theft. He hid it under his liver and it was my lucky sponge.
If you don't want to cap awards, then we're going to have to tighten up significantly on what is allowable under the "color" of negligence and malpractice. If you think that the reason malpractice premiums are astronomical is due to overt negligent actions such as doctors amputating the wrong foot or removing kidneys when they should have been removing spleens, you're dreadfully mistaken. Overt negligence and malpractice is actually the exception, not the rule.
What you have are people filing lawsuits over UNDESIRABLE OUTCOMES or COMPLICATIONS which are part of the known risks to which a patient consents before undergoing a medical procedure. If one of the known risks of your surgery is the complication of infection, and you sign a consent form indicating you are aware that one of the known risks of your surgery is the complication of infection, you should NOT be allowed to sue because you developed an infection. Yet that is precisely what happens.
In the vast majority of cases, if the lawsuit was allowed to proceed before a judge or a jury, the doctor or hospital would prevail, but at an ENTRY LEVEL cost of $50,000 just to defend one's self from a lawsuit which has no hope of succeeding. Its simply cheaper to wave $25,000 in front of the plaintiff's face to make it go away. THAT is the problem, not doctors amputating the wrong feet.
Researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard School of Public Health recently published a study which found that about 1500 cases of surgical items being left in patients occurs annually in the United States. This in contrast to the 28 million surgical procedures performed annually. The study found that negligence was not a factor, emergency operations were "nine times more likely to lead to such mistakes" (highest correlation), and "operating-room complications requiring a change in procedure are four times more likely".
This is acceptable human error, if you've ever worked in emergency medicine, as I did for some five years, you know that saving the patient's life becomes the over-riding concern, everything else is a distant second. In the chaos of an emergency, mistakes are made, and nobody is to blame for them. But people routinely sue because of a mistake that was made when they came into the ER after being seriously injured in a car accident or shooting, people who WOULD HAVE DIED had it not been for the intervention of the very people they are suing. That's gratitude for ya!
And as for the one highly publicized case of the doctor amputating the wrong foot, BOTH of the patient's feet were dying from diabetic complications. It wasn't as though the doctor had the choice between a 'good' foot and a 'bad' foot, but amputated the 'good' foot instead. BOTH feet were dying and would ultimately require amputation, the choice was between a bad foot and a worse foot.
Anyone have any objective comments about the CA law. That's really what Bush is pushing for. Or a close facsimile thereof.
Geekbabe
Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
capped at 250,000? I don't agree,what if someone is left totally and permanately disabled/disfigured as result of somebody's errors ?
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 25,913
- 4,504
- 126
I don't think we need a specific cap like is being proposed. However I do think there should be recommended payouts told to the juries during their consideration of damages to award.
Suppose the average plantif won X amount of money for the mistake. Juries should be told that their damage should be roughly X. But give them recommended multipliers to that award. Suppose the jury determines that the defendant was especially cruel/careless, then the award can be tripled. If the jury determines that the pain and suffering is especially intense for the plantiff, then the award can be tripled. On the otherhand if the jury feels the doctor tried his/her best and there was an unfortunate accident then the award should be divided by three. Something like that should be told to the jury. Juries still would have the right to award whatever they feel is right, but at least they have a basis to go by.
The government generally has a policy that a life is worth a million dollars. If an auto company/airline company can put in a safety device which will save lives, then it is mandatory if the device costs less than 1 million per estimated saved life. Thus if someone dies a jury award basis should start at around $1 million. If the doctor was especially careless then multiply that by 3. The award should be about $3 million. These are rough numbers, but a good guideline. I really don't like how I see $1 billion awards for someone who didn't even die.
Suppose the average plantif won X amount of money for the mistake. Juries should be told that their damage should be roughly X. But give them recommended multipliers to that award. Suppose the jury determines that the defendant was especially cruel/careless, then the award can be tripled. If the jury determines that the pain and suffering is especially intense for the plantiff, then the award can be tripled. On the otherhand if the jury feels the doctor tried his/her best and there was an unfortunate accident then the award should be divided by three. Something like that should be told to the jury. Juries still would have the right to award whatever they feel is right, but at least they have a basis to go by.
The government generally has a policy that a life is worth a million dollars. If an auto company/airline company can put in a safety device which will save lives, then it is mandatory if the device costs less than 1 million per estimated saved life. Thus if someone dies a jury award basis should start at around $1 million. If the doctor was especially careless then multiply that by 3. The award should be about $3 million. These are rough numbers, but a good guideline. I really don't like how I see $1 billion awards for someone who didn't even die.
Geekbabe
Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
lol,speaking of,I saw somerthing on tv yesterday about how there's like 1,500 cases a year of people with medical equipment being left inside them during surgery.
FeathersMcGraw
Diamond Member
- Oct 17, 2001
- 4,041
- 1
- 0
Nitemare
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2001
- 35,461
- 4
- 81
Good Lord...kind of makes me want to get cloned so I can vote twice for him in 2004.
Outrageous awards and frivolous lawsuits are the reason why medical malpractice insurance is so friggin high. Once this comes down maybe Americans with benefits can afford to go to the doctor.
Outrageous awards and frivolous lawsuits are the reason why medical malpractice insurance is so friggin high. Once this comes down maybe Americans with benefits can afford to go to the doctor.
I agree with the first part, I don't agree with the caps. I think we need to teach ppl that saying "i'm going to sue you" isn't the way to solve everything.
The limit only on the non-economic/emotional suffering damage. The injured would still get monetary award for potential economic loss and medical treatment cost for his/her lifetime. So, well-paid ceo will get more money from this award than Joe at McD's counter. And the lawyers fee will cut Joe's award by 1/3 to 1/2.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 25,913
- 4,504
- 126
I disagree with the loser pays for one major reason - poor people basically could never sue (for risk that they might lose). The plantiff never knows if the doctor will hire a huge team of lawyers, making the trial cost into the hundreds of thousands of dollars (I chose that number since my parents were recently sued and they got a cheap lawyer who was also their next door neighbor and a good friend, but the trial lasted so long the lawyer cost them $200,000). Imagine what would happen to even a middle class person if they had a good suit but still lost.
A blanket loser pays suit means if anyone is certain to win, they will spend as much money as possible on lawyer fees just to hurt the other person that much more. Imagine as the trial progresses and it is clear that there will be a winner, that potential winner suddenly hires 10 more lawyers...
I think it should be loser pays IF the jury unanimously decides the lawsuit was especially frivolous. If the jury says it was a good point, but you still lose, then it isn't loser pays.
A blanket loser pays suit means if anyone is certain to win, they will spend as much money as possible on lawyer fees just to hurt the other person that much more. Imagine as the trial progresses and it is clear that there will be a winner, that potential winner suddenly hires 10 more lawyers...
I think it should be loser pays IF the jury unanimously decides the lawsuit was especially frivolous. If the jury says it was a good point, but you still lose, then it isn't loser pays.
43st
Diamond Member
- Nov 7, 2001
- 3,197
- 0
- 0
My problem with this is that it doesn't force any changes on the medical community.
A fact, on the news the other night, is that 5% of doctors make up over 50% of malpractice claims. What's being done to insure those 5% are removed from the doctor pool? Personally I'd rather have the crap doctors booted than anything else. Just imagine if 50% of the malpractice claims stopped. That would really be a big help.
A fact, on the news the other night, is that 5% of doctors make up over 50% of malpractice claims. What's being done to insure those 5% are removed from the doctor pool? Personally I'd rather have the crap doctors booted than anything else. Just imagine if 50% of the malpractice claims stopped. That would really be a big help.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Cap the awards? Hell no! I think we should set a minimum award of 80 bazillion dollars! Make those goddam doctors pay, the greedy bastards!
Do any of you fools realize that some states in the US have a shortage of doctors due in large part to these lawsuits? I guess if you like the cost of medical care getting even more expensive than it is now, keep on suing, dumbasses.
Do any of you fools realize that some states in the US have a shortage of doctors due in large part to these lawsuits? I guess if you like the cost of medical care getting even more expensive than it is now, keep on suing, dumbasses.
I am not sure if it was AMA or other medical professional association/lobbying group that disagrees with making doctors' practice records (malpractice, etc) public.
Nitemare
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2001
- 35,461
- 4
- 81
So if I spill a cup of coffee on me, I should get 2.7 mill? or 28 billion for smoking and being not lied to by the manufacturers of the cigarettes?
or the 3 billion a heroine addict won because she smoked to?
caps are a necessity, 250k seems kind of low though...
Doctors are leaving Florida in droves because of the frivolous lawsuits. Go back to 1992 and remember this was George Sr's answer to medical reforms. Reduce the lawsuits, reduce the costs of medical care. That's much better than socialized medicine. I haven't read about the caps proposed, but I agree with heart surgeon. The lawyer's greed have caused the price of everything to go through the roof.
I once had to sue someone because they hid some damage in a house I bought. It took 2 years to settle it, and I won, but it still cost me about $7500 in attorney fees, which wasn't much more than the award that I got. Looking back on the whole process, I don't think I would have pursued it because of the stress it caused to me and my wife. I can only begin to imagine what it caused the people that I had to sue. Of course, if they would have admitted what they did to begin with, and/or made it right when I brought it to their attention, we all could have avoided it. What this guy did was throw new drywall over some rotted out wood on the walls and ceilings of the garage. As soon as it rained, it leaked and when I went to repair the leak, I found all this rotten wood that had been covered up. I had the guy nailed too. My wife videotaped it as I took down most of it, and it was very damaging to him. What a scumbag, he even buried a bunch (several tons) of asbestos tile in the backyard and then built a shed on top of it and hoped no one would ever find it. We had his disclosure forms signed by him at the closing that said there was no known rot or hazardous materials anywhere on the property. Scumbag!
/gets off soapbox/
Tort reform is needed badly in the US!
I once had to sue someone because they hid some damage in a house I bought. It took 2 years to settle it, and I won, but it still cost me about $7500 in attorney fees, which wasn't much more than the award that I got. Looking back on the whole process, I don't think I would have pursued it because of the stress it caused to me and my wife. I can only begin to imagine what it caused the people that I had to sue. Of course, if they would have admitted what they did to begin with, and/or made it right when I brought it to their attention, we all could have avoided it. What this guy did was throw new drywall over some rotted out wood on the walls and ceilings of the garage. As soon as it rained, it leaked and when I went to repair the leak, I found all this rotten wood that had been covered up. I had the guy nailed too. My wife videotaped it as I took down most of it, and it was very damaging to him. What a scumbag, he even buried a bunch (several tons) of asbestos tile in the backyard and then built a shed on top of it and hoped no one would ever find it. We had his disclosure forms signed by him at the closing that said there was no known rot or hazardous materials anywhere on the property. Scumbag!
/gets off soapbox/
Tort reform is needed badly in the US!
Exactly, I think a lot of people are misinformed.
There are two phases to these kinds of jury awards. One phase is ACTUAL damages that you can put an objective figure on: hospital bills, loss of wages, cost of rehabilition or therapy, cost of any corrective surgery, etc. Nobody has proposed capping these kinds of awards. If your medical bills, loss of wages, corrective surgeries, counseling, rehabilition or therapy, and other ACTUAL costs equal or are estimated to equal $1 million dollars, the proposed cap will have no impact on those awards.
The proposed cap only affects damages awarded for things like "pain and suffering" and "emotional distress". It would also cap punitive damages, which are awarded to "punish" the defendent, not as some sort of compensation for actual damages incurred.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,118
- 18,646
- 146
Coffee spill cases wouldn't be taken by lawyers fearful of losing in a loser pays system.
Caps are a limitation on freedom. Just as sentencing guidelines are too arbitrary, so would lawsuit caps.
Juries and judges NEED unlimited discretion on punitive damages, lest paying lawsuits becomes cheaper for companies than making safe products. A $250,000 payout for a major corporation is nothing. It doesn't even cause worry, and therefore will not cause action.
The whole point of punitive damages is to insure the company takes responsibility for their actions and does not continue to endanger people.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,118
- 18,646
- 146
No. In contingency cases, the lawyer is already betting what his time costs. I'm just asking that the stakes be raised to include the costs of BOTH sides.
This wont make it harder on the poor. It will only make lawyers more selective in what cases they will press. It will prevent ambulance chasers from fishing for settlements.
Most companies settle frivolous lawsuits rather than fight them because it's far cheaper. THAT is the problem here. For every outrageous award you hear about, there are literally tens of thousands of frivolous cases settled that you don't hear about. In reality, that is where most of the money is going.
As for your "ten more lawyers" scenario," that would be a good time for the other side to drop the case, no?
The AMA and other professional groups do not oppose making doctor's practice records public, per se. What they oppose are proposals like the one that California was recently mulling around, which would require the records of physicians to be publicized if they had been sued three times or more, regardless of the outcome of that lawsuit, even if the physican prevailed in all three. Three lawsuits? Hell, every physician HOPES he will have only been named in three lawsuits by the end of his medical career!
If you're in practice long enough, without regard to your competence as a physician, you WILL be sued three times, whether or not you made a mistake.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 25,913
- 4,504
- 126
Why do you think it won't make it harder on the poor. Suppose I was trying to sue for $1,000 and I was poor - I have a good case, but so does the defendant (quite often this occurs in civil suits where both parties have some liability). The defendant refuses to settle and hires a $200 an hour lawyer. Now I have a choice: drop the case, or risk forking over potentially thousands of dollars. If I'm poor, I have to drop the case - I cannot accept that risk. So basically if a poor person sues you, all you have to do to end the lawsuit is hire an expensive hourly lawyer (ok this won't stop all cases, but it certainly will stop a lot of them).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter