My Lawsuit Is Over Now, Time To Vent Thread

[RustedFox]

Can't you guys just say no? Sure, the admin might fire you, but emerg is a very portable field. Mba types need to be told to stick to their field while you stick to yours. The minute they make any suggestion or demand that interferes with patient care, they are practicing medicine and that's illegal. Tell them to shove it.

For teh Lulz.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Substance]

For teh Lulz.

But I'm actually serious here. That's what they'd hear from me.

MBA: "Your wait-times are not meeting prescribed benchmarks and..."
Me: "GFY"

End.

 

[SpaceLeftBlank]

To Birdstrike and others, do we have the ability to countersue for lawsuits? Seems like it would be reasonable to ask for attorney's fees, time involved, and pain suffering.

Countersue? Not really, unless you're still owed fees or something. But suing to avoid paying the bill is more common with the people who sue my legal-malpractice clients, as opposed to the medical-malpractice ones.

Typically, attorney fees are the responsibility of each party, but many jurisdictions, including mine, have various methods for shifting them from the losing party to the winning one, such as when the case is frivolous, or if one side does worse at trial than a pretrial mediation case said the case was worth (i.e., if the plaintiff could have offered to settle, didn't, and then loses entirely). For the most part, though, your malpractice carriers pay your attorney fees (if your policy says otherwise, which would surprise me, you'll want to consider a different one, I think). I believe some policies also cover stuff like your lost time for depositions, hearings, etc., but that's not really my wheelhouse.

But suing for the indignity of being sued is not a realistic option. The closest causes of action are "abuse of process" or "malicious prosecution," but generally speaking, you're more likely to prove Bigfoot exists than either of those causes of action.

 

[Apollyon]

"And do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga...gunga -- gunga galunga." - Carl Spackler

The Dalai Lama - he's a heavy hitter.

 

[Birdstrike]

Countersue? Not really, unless you're still owed fees or something. But suing to avoid paying the bill is more common with the people who sue my legal-malpractice clients, as opposed to the medical-malpractice ones.

Typically, attorney fees are the responsibility of each party, but many jurisdictions, including mine, have various methods for shifting them from the losing party to the winning one, such as when the case is frivolous, or if one side does worse at trial than a pretrial mediation case said the case was worth (i.e., if the plaintiff could have offered to settle, didn't, and then loses entirely). For the most part, though, your malpractice carriers pay your attorney fees (if your policy says otherwise, which would surprise me, you'll want to consider a different one, I think). I believe some policies also cover stuff like your lost time for depositions, hearings, etc., but that's not really my wheelhouse.

But suing for the indignity of being sued is not a realistic option. The closest causes of action are "abuse of process" or "malicious prosecution," but generally speaking, you're more likely to prove Bigfoot exists than either of those causes of action.

I'd have to echo this. The answer is, "Yes, you can," but since the damages (if you think about) are mainly emotional, it's hard to recover enough to make it worth anyone's time, more legal bills and more time in depositions.

There's very little in our system that allows you to hit back very hard for being baselessly and falsely accused of malpractice, unfortunately.

Once you realize it has less to do with you than it does with attorneys shaking down an insurance company for money, it softens the blow a little bit (maybe).

You are merely the stick used to whack the piñata until the candy comes out.

 

[dally1025]

To Birdstrike and others, do we have the ability to countersue for lawsuits? Seems like it would be reasonable to ask for attorney's fees, time involved, and pain suffering.

Some states (including mine) if the plaintiff can't produce an expert witness to testify that the doc did not act according to the standard of care they are liable for both side's attorney's fees and court costs for certain types of lawsuits. This drastically decreased lawsuits for awhile until they found loopholes around the law. Each state has their own rules but countersuing isn't likely going to get you much... It is my understanding that your malpractice insurance pays for the material costs so at least you're not out of pocket for it. The emotional damage is yours to do with it what you will.

 

[docB]

Some states (including mine) if the plaintiff can't produce an expert witness to testify that the doc did not act according to the standard of care they are liable for both side's attorney's fees and court costs for certain types of lawsuits. This drastically decreased lawsuits for awhile until they found loopholes around the law. Each state has their own rules but countersuing isn't likely going to get you much... It is my understanding that your malpractice insurance pays for the material costs so at least you're not out of pocket for it. The emotional damage is yours to do with it what you will.

I'm sorry but I don't see how that would ever result in a decrease in litigation. No plaintiff's lawyer would ever even file a suit unless he already had an expert on board and experts can be bought. This sounds like one of those rules that states pass so they can say they're dealing with the problem but it doesn't really affect their law school buddies.

 

[SpaceLeftBlank]

Some states (including mine) if the plaintiff can't produce an expert witness to testify that the doc did not act according to the standard of care they are liable for both side's attorney's fees and court costs for certain types of lawsuits.

In my state, you can't even file the lawsuit without getting an affidavit from an expert witness that says that. And there are some fairly strict rules about qualifications for experts--if you're a board-certified emergency physician, for example, the plaintiff has to get an affidavit from another board-certified emergency physician.

 

[SpaceLeftBlank]

I'm sorry but I don't see how that would ever result in a decrease in litigation. No plaintiff's lawyer would ever even file a suit unless he already had an expert on board and experts can be bought. This sounds like one of those rules that states pass so they can say they're dealing with the problem but it doesn't really affect their law school buddies.

Laws similar to that here have resulted in a dramatic decrease in medical-malpractice filings, actually.

Plaintiffs' lawyers here won't file medical-malpractice lawsuits without one or more of the following being true: (1) an arguable act of negligence with a strong expert willing to testify that there was a breach of the standard of care; (2) a rather large amount of potential damages; or (3) (less common) the plaintiffs' lawyer doesn't know what he or she's doing and files the case, quickly getting in over his or her head.

 

[SpaceLeftBlank]

We better stop trashing on lawyers..

Don't stop on my account--there are plenty of days I'd probably join you.

 

[dally1025]

I'm sorry but I don't see how that would ever result in a decrease in litigation. No plaintiff's lawyer would ever even file a suit unless he already had an expert on board and experts can be bought. This sounds like one of those rules that states pass so they can say they're dealing with the problem but it doesn't really affect their law school buddies.

In my state, you can't even file the lawsuit without getting an affidavit from an expert witness that says that. And there are some fairly strict rules about qualifications for experts--if you're a board-certified emergency physician, for example, the plaintiff has to get an affidavit from another board-certified emergency physician.

My state has the same requirements from an expert witness plus they have to be from the neighboring states and have practiced in a similar locale as the defendant within the last year. It drastically cut down on med mal suits filed in my state. However, lawyers are finding ways to get around those rules and suits are increasing but not by much. Not sure how the courts will rule in the future regarding expert witnesses but it works if there are requirements on who qualifies as an expert witness.

 

[WilcoWorld]

they have to be from the neighboring states and have practiced in a similar locale as the defendant within the last year.

This is a very important point. I work at a referral center, so my standard of care (STAT Optho consult at 3am) just doesn't apply in most places.

On the other hand, I've never been a plaintiff's witness either...

 

[Birdstrike]

Originally Posted by Birdstrike





Have I thought about retraining in a different field other than EM? Yes, and in fact I did.

?

Actually, this is not entirely accurate. I didn't "retrain" in anything. I did further my training, expanding my skills without throwing away my training or starting over. That's very different, actually.

 

[TheWeeIceMan]

Awesome. I've been looking to transition into that exact field. Do you know of any openings for a golf pro that can occasionally break 100, winter rules, when the conditions are just right?




"And do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga...gunga -- gunga galunga." - Carl Spackler

I know you're joking, but you might be surprised what it takes to qualify as a level 1 (entry-level) professional. Over the 36 hole test, I believe you have to score better than about +15 (possibly up to +20). Still not easy, but not as difficult as you might think. Hypothetically, you would then find a assistant job and take the necessary classes and training to move up "levels" to eventually become a PGA Professional, which would be what you would need to land a cush, 6 figure job. This typically takes about 5 years.

The course I worked at actually had a couple former physicians and dentists that starting working there when they retired. If I ever won the lottery or got to the point where I didn't need money anymore, I would go back to work there in a heartbeat.

 

[Birdstrike]

One of the most dismal views of the outlook for lawyers I've read in a long time:

The Fall and Rise of Lawyers

"The American legal profession has faced a tsunami of bad news since 2008...In 1988, solo practitioners earned an inflation-adjusted $70,747. By 2012, earnings had fallen to $49,130, a 30% decrease in real income. And note, $49,130 is not the starting salary for these lawyers. It is the average.."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/22/opinions/barton-rise-and-fall-of-lawyers/

 

[slystalone]

i'm late to this but very well written! thanks for sharing your story

 

[Birdstrike]

i'm late to this but very well written! thanks for sharing your story

If you're talking about the OP, thanks for reading.

 

[Gastrapathy]

Arbitration agreements are strongly worth considering. Some people believe you are more likely to get a compromise verdict and have to pay something but the process is so much better. Kaiser knows what they are doing: http://www.oia-kaiserarb.com/pdfs/2014-Annual-Report.pdf

 

[Old_Mil]

There may be shift limits in parts of Canada but where I practice there are certainly none, as our current shifts range from 7-14 hours in length depending on the hospital, and there is no limit to how many shifts you can work in a week or month. Most of us make above $200,000.00 if working full time. I work part time EM and part time FP and last year made almost $300,000.00. That was without killing myself, generally seeing between 2-3 patients/hr. We have excellent consultant coverage and good relationships with most of our colleagues. And very few lawsuits. Cheers,

I was going to add, aside from the recent weakness in the CAD vs the USD, the pay rates I was seeing there were every bit the equal of what they were in the US on a dollar per hour basis. Add to that some interesting tax structures you can use as a Canadian physician that are not available here in the US as a W2/1099 and you can actually get a raise going north of the border.

My application to the CPSO for a license is almost complete.

 

[WilcoWorld]

I was going to add, aside from the recent weakness in the CAD vs the USD, the pay rates I was seeing there were every bit the equal of what they were in the US on a dollar per hour basis. Add to that some interesting tax structures you can use as a Canadian physician that are not available here in the US as a W2/1099 and you can actually get a raise going north of the border.

My application to the CPSO for a license is almost complete.

I'm very interested in hearing how this goes for you. Please return occasionally to let us know.

 

[SpaceLeftBlank]

One of the most dismal views of the outlook for lawyers I've read in a long time:

The Fall and Rise of Lawyers

"The American legal profession has faced a tsunami of bad news since 2008...In 1988, solo practitioners earned an inflation-adjusted $70,747. By 2012, earnings had fallen to $49,130, a 30% decrease in real income. And note, $49,130 is not the starting salary for these lawyers. It is the average.."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/22/opinions/barton-rise-and-fall-of-lawyers/

The pay isn't the worst part of it--it's the difficulty finding a job in the first place.

Well, that and the whole "being a lawyer in the first place" thing.

Of course, it's hard to get the whole picture by looking at the solo-practitioner level of income--the solo lawyer may be more common than the solo physician, but like physicians, it's not really the common pathway like it once was. Lawyers are increasingly going solo because they have to based on a bad job market or lackluster skills/abilities, rather than because they want to.