$10 million lawsuit for patient suicide

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

NYEMMED

Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
824
Reaction score
819
$10-million malpractice verdict against prominent doctor stemming from patient’s suicide


It was a Internal medicine and not an EM physician but I find it scary that a case like this can be lost for $10 million. It’s even documented the patient was not suicidal or homicidal. This could of happened to any EM physician. Cases like this make me want to get out of medicine altogether

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
What ever happened to personal responsibility? The wife couldn't drive him over to the hospital? Ridiculous.
 
Question: if you case goes to trial, can you waive your right to a jury and be tried by the judge?
 
Question: if you case goes to trial, can you waive your right to a jury and be tried by the judge?

As far as I know, in a civil case both the plaintiff and defendant have the right to demand trial by jury. You will not be able to unilaterally decide to have the case tried by a judge if the plaintiff desires a jury trial.
 
This will get overturned on appeal.

Perhaps, but think of the money spent on defense, time involved by the physician, and the emotional trauma the physician suffered.

People seem to forget that patients -- not physicians -- are responsible for their own healthcare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Imagine practicing medicine in New York.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
$10-million malpractice verdict against prominent doctor stemming from patient’s suicide


It was a Internal medicine and not an EM physician but I find it scary that a case like this can be lost for $10 million. It’s even documented the patient was not suicidal or homicidal. This could of happened to any EM physician. Cases like this make me want to get out of medicine altogether

Meh...

So a frivolous lawsuit won a big award in a judicial hell-hole state from a doctor that didn't commit malpractice. This is not news. This is normal.

Buy malpractice insurance, d on't practice in judicial hell-hole states, do the best you can, and let your malpractice insurance company worry about the rest.

Please, whatever you do, don't lose one minute of sleep over two law firms fighting over an insurance company's money. It has nothing to do with you, me or the doctor in this article.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Cali is a tort reform state. I’d stay far away from Pennsylvania and New Jersey


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Meh...

So a frivolous lawsuit won a big award in a judicial hell-hole state from a doctor that didn't commit malpractice. This is not news. This is normal.

Buy malpractice insurance, d on't practice in judicial hell-hole states, do the best you can, and let your malpractice insurance company worry about the rest.

Please, whatever you do, don't lose one minute of sleep over two law firms fighting over an insurance company's money. It has nothing to do with you, me or the doctor in this article.

Amen. I told patients I had nothing to do with billing. In the same way I don't care about malpractice suits as they really don't impact me in any realistic way. I have practiced EM since most of you were born. During that time I haven't come across a physician who actually paid out a penny in a malpractice suit. I haven't come across anyone who knows a physician who has paid out a penny. I haven't come across anyone who knows someone who knows someone who has paid out a penny. It is just a bunch of corporations fighting each other.

It is right up there with the histrionics of those who claim we need to go with single-payer because otherwise they will be left to bleed to death in a hospital parking lot if they don't have insurance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Members don't see this ad :)
New York
California
Illinois
...others?

Years ago, AAEM did a series on legal status / reform state-by-state. Many of the low-scoring ones on that list would be "DNR" for me -- Illinois, much of the northeast, etc.

Financially, there are other implications that turn into a geography tax versus proximity to where you want to be type discussion.

We all carry insurance for good reason, but in the end, I'd rather live in a more protected state than not. Peace of mind counts.
 
Meh...

So a frivolous lawsuit won a big award in a judicial hell-hole state from a doctor that didn't commit malpractice. This is not news. This is normal.

Buy malpractice insurance, d on't practice in judicial hell-hole states, do the best you can, and let your malpractice insurance company worry about the rest.

Please, whatever you do, don't lose one minute of sleep over two law firms fighting over an insurance company's money. It has nothing to do with you, me or the doctor in this article.


Just out of curiosity since I’m not as familiar with this...

The physician lost for $10 million, our malpractice insurance policies are usually for $1 million, so wouldn’t the physician need to pay the difference personally? (which paying 9 million seems like it would bankrupt any physician)
 
Just out of curiosity since I’m not as familiar with this...

The physician lost for $10 million, our malpractice insurance policies are usually for $1 million, so wouldn’t the physician need to pay the difference personally? (which paying 9 million seems like it would bankrupt any physician)

No. Or it is incredibly rare.

First, damages are routinely reduced dramatically on appeal.
Second, any attempt to recover beyond policy limits would be made against the hospital or other corporation.
Third, there is really no money in attempting to collect from a physician. It is the same as suing a patient for $200, there is no real money in it.
Fourth, it is not in the attorneys interest to try to collect.

A story from a book I read on Lord Mounbatten. Once he was visiting San Paulo, Brazil and they were scheduled to climb up to the "Christ the Redeemer" statue. He and his entourage were told to have 5 Reals to pay the robbers. Given that they were surrounded by heavily armed guards, they were surprised, but had the coins handy. Sure enough, half way up the mountain, a group of bandits came out of the surroundings, pointed guns at them, demanded 5 Reals each, but would not accept a penny(?) more. They faded away into the countryside and the group continued to the top of the mountain and came back down without any interference. The "robbers" were allowed to continue since they weren't doing a whole lot of harm. If they actually tried to really rob the tourists, or kidnapped them, the "robbers" would have been eliminated by the government - perhaps literally.

It is the same thing with malpractice attorneys. They know that if they push to hard it will lead to a physician revolt, with physicians banding together on expert testimony and draconian malpractice reform. There is an unspoken truce: "you don't come after us physicians personally, and we won't destroy your profession." As a result an attorney who attempted to collect above the limits would probably find himself beaten up by other lawyers as he walked to his car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Just out of curiosity since I’m not as familiar with this...

The physician lost for $10 million, our malpractice insurance policies are usually for $1 million, so wouldn’t the physician need to pay the difference personally? (which paying 9 million seems like it would bankrupt any physician)

My understanding is that almost all giant awards like this eventually end up being appealed/negotiated/legal stuff-ed down to a number at or below the insurance policy maximum.

EDIT: What Vandalia said
 
No. Or it is incredibly rare.

First, damages are routinely reduced dramatically on appeal.
Second, any attempt to recover beyond policy limits would be made against the hospital or other corporation.
Third, there is really no money in attempting to collect from a physician. It is the same as suing a patient for $200, there is no real money in it.
Fourth, it is not in the attorneys interest to try to collect.

A story from a book I read on Lord Mounbatten. Once he was visiting San Paulo, Brazil and they were scheduled to climb up to the "Christ the Redeemer" statue. He and his entourage were told to have 5 Reals to pay the robbers. Given that they were surrounded by heavily armed guards, they were surprised, but had the coins handy. Sure enough, half way up the mountain, a group of bandits came out of the surroundings, pointed guns at them, demanded 5 Reals each, but would not accept a penny(?) more. They faded away into the countryside and the group continued to the top of the mountain and came back down without any interference. The "robbers" were allowed to continue since they weren't doing a whole lot of harm. If they actually tried to really rob the tourists, or kidnapped them, the "robbers" would have been eliminated by the government - perhaps literally.

It is the same thing with malpractice attorneys. They know that if they push to hard it will lead to a physician revolt, with physicians banding together on expert testimony and draconian malpractice reform. There is an unspoken truce: "you don't come after us physicians personally, and we won't destroy your profession." As a result an attorney who attempted to collect above the limits would probably find himself beaten up by other lawyers as he walked to his car.
Like John Edwards?
 
Like John Edwards?

These days the best won't touch med-mal. Much better and easier returns from auto accidents, work accidents, asbestos, and suits against drug and medical device manufacturers.

Edwards made most of his money in suits against corporations.
 
It is the same thing with malpractice attorneys. They know that if they push to hard it will lead to a physician revolt, with physicians banding together on expert testimony and draconian malpractice reform. There is an unspoken truce: "you don't come after us physicians personally, and we won't destroy your profession." As a result an attorney who attempted to collect above the limits would probably find himself beaten up by other lawyers as he walked to his car.

I was with you until this. Physicians can't organize about anything; we are some of our own worst enemies. In the unlikely scenario that (most) physicians could organize and boycott expert testimony one of two things would happen: lawyers would still find some retired or otherwise non-practicing doctor to testify, or they would sue the physician groups organizing the boycott. I found this article that details some examples of "small" out-of-pocket payments (10-60k) after insurance limits; I'm certain many lawyers would go for more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I was with you until this. Physicians can't organize about anything; we are some of our own worst enemies. In the unlikely scenario that (most) physicians could organize and boycott expert testimony one of two things would happen: lawyers would still find some retired or otherwise non-practicing doctor to testify, or they would sue the physician groups organizing the boycott. I found this article that details some examples of "small" out-of-pocket payments (10-60k) after insurance limits; I'm certain many lawyers would go for more.

It has happened. See West Virginia. Physicians went on strike and got significant reforms.

Surgeons in W.Va. Strike Over Costs of Malpractice

The 2003 changes - caps on noneconomic damages in particular - were a direct result of the strike. https://www.chartrrg.com/wp-content...-State-Medical-Malpractice-Laws-DC-Offutt.pdf
 
The issue with California is high cost of living/taxes and low pay - NOT medmal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
No. Or it is incredibly rare.

First, damages are routinely reduced dramatically on appeal.
Second, any attempt to recover beyond policy limits would be made against the hospital or other corporation.
Third, there is really no money in attempting to collect from a physician. It is the same as suing a patient for $200, there is no real money in it.
Fourth, it is not in the attorneys interest to try to collect.

A story from a book I read on Lord Mounbatten. Once he was visiting San Paulo, Brazil and they were scheduled to climb up to the "Christ the Redeemer" statue. He and his entourage were told to have 5 Reals to pay the robbers. Given that they were surrounded by heavily armed guards, they were surprised, but had the coins handy. Sure enough, half way up the mountain, a group of bandits came out of the surroundings, pointed guns at them, demanded 5 Reals each, but would not accept a penny(?) more. They faded away into the countryside and the group continued to the top of the mountain and came back down without any interference. The "robbers" were allowed to continue since they weren't doing a whole lot of harm. If they actually tried to really rob the tourists, or kidnapped them, the "robbers" would have been eliminated by the government - perhaps literally.

It is the same thing with malpractice attorneys. They know that if they push to hard it will lead to a physician revolt, with physicians banding together on expert testimony and draconian malpractice reform. There is an unspoken truce: "you don't come after us physicians personally, and we won't destroy your profession." As a result an attorney who attempted to collect above the limits would probably find himself beaten up by other lawyers as he walked to his car.
Yes. And have you also noticed that attorneys rarely if ever go after a physician’s medical license during or after a lawsuit?

They have the ability to file medical board complaints as much as any citizen. They’ll spend a week in court trying to create the impression you’re an incompetent, dangerous, cro-magnon buffoon without a conscience that maimed their patient and you have no business near anything resembling a human or other living creature, but then never file a complaint to the medical board to take the doc’s license.

That’s because they want you around as long as possible so they can hit the piñata again, and again, and again.

The last thing they want is to bankrupt a doc who can no longer pay his insurance premium next quarter. A pinata is good to no one if it’s not stuffed with goodies.

And with that we’ve come full circle back to the fact that medical malpractice is not about destroying you financially or career-wise, or about squeezing blood out of a rock, but all about 2 lawyers fighting each other to extract money from an insurance company.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Meh...

So a frivolous lawsuit won a big award in a judicial hell-hole state from a doctor that didn't commit malpractice. This is not news. This is normal.

Buy malpractice insurance, d on't practice in judicial hell-hole states, do the best you can, and let your malpractice insurance company worry about the rest.

Please, whatever you do, don't lose one minute of sleep over two law firms fighting over an insurance company's money. It has nothing to do with you, me or the doctor in this article.

The problem is that med/mal insurance has caps. Usually its $1 mill per occurance. So any verdict over that goes on you, not your insurance. Now, almost always, rather than trying to bleed the doctor dry, and to prevent the risk of losing in appeal, most of these decisions end up with the physician waiving the right to an appeal for the prosecution accepting the $1 mill cap.
 
Cali is a tort reform state. I’d stay far away from Pennsylvania and New Jersey


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Just a defense for PA, which I agree has terrible tort reform. Honestly though, its not a bad state to practice in from a malpractice standpoint. The majority of the population is not at all sue happy, its a pretty blue collar state. Philadelphia (and Pittsburgh to a lesser extent) really give it a bad name. Philly in particular, because they are known for their ridiculous payout decisions. Much of the more rural parts of the state actually aren't very bad at all to practice in from a legal standpoint.
 
The problem is that med/mal insurance has caps. Usually its $1 mill per occurance. So any verdict over that goes on you, not your insurance. Now, almost always, rather than trying to bleed the doctor dry, and to prevent the risk of losing in appeal, most of these decisions end up with the physician waiving the right to an appeal for the prosecution accepting the $1 mill cap.
That's fine. The doc pays not a penny out of pocket and life & work go on without a hitch (if you let it).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That's fine. The doc pays not a penny out of pocket and life & work go on without a hitch (if you let it).

It always amazes me that physicians who have climbed to the top of the educational heap and who have one of the most respected professions in the country can have such fragile egos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Just a defense for PA, which I agree has terrible tort reform. Honestly though, its not a bad state to practice in from a malpractice standpoint. The majority of the population is not at all sue happy, its a pretty blue collar state. Philadelphia (and Pittsburgh to a lesser extent) really give it a bad name. Philly in particular, because they are known for their ridiculous payout decisions. Much of the more rural parts of the state actually aren't very bad at all to practice in from a legal standpoint.

States that are generally undesirable (high taxes, icky climate, no world-class cities, no outdoor wonder) usually try and attract physicians with higher salaries, medmal caps etc. I'm not seeing PA, which AFAIK meets undesirable criteria, doing anything to attract docs.
 
Just a defense for PA, which I agree has terrible tort reform. Honestly though, its not a bad state to practice in from a malpractice standpoint. The majority of the population is not at all sue happy, its a pretty blue collar state. Philadelphia (and Pittsburgh to a lesser extent) really give it a bad name. Philly in particular, because they are known for their ridiculous payout decisions. Much of the more rural parts of the state actually aren't very bad at all to practice in from a legal standpoint.

In general, working rural offers some protection from a suit.

This is from the mouth of a prominent med-mal lawyer. He explained that the prospect of a rural trial scares off plaintiff's attorneys to the point they turn down most of these cases because they know these juries will have fewer degrees of separation between them and the doc and that most rural folks don't want to cause ill will or lose their docs.

If you work rural, aren't a dick, and show the community you actually care you can probably sleep a little easier at night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
It always amazes me that physicians who have climbed to the top of the educational heap and who have one of the most respected professions in the country can have such fragile egos.
I've always been amazed myself.
 
I've always been amazed myself.

I agree. I've never been concerned with malpractice. I just try and practice good medicine. If you practice long enough, something bad will happen, its unavoidable. Mistakes happen, and sometimes its not even a mistake, but just being at the wrong place in the wrong time. I think there is an irrational fear of malpractice, but I suspect there is some real risk and reason that backs up the irrational fear. It makes no sense to be afraid of malpractice if you work in a state that caps payouts. That's just completely pointless to worry about it. But if you don't, and you work somewhere where there could be a big mega-payout, I do get the fear. Yes, most of these get settled for the cap, or reversed in appeal, but its at least theoretically possible (and I'm pretty sure it has happened) that your personal assets can be taken. So even if you are the one physician this does happen to, can you even imagine working all this time grinding it out in the pit, only to have all your retirement taken away from you. Knowing that if you work, for the rest of your life, a large percentage will go to paying off the plaintiff. It would be a misery. Is that likely to ever happen? Absolutely not. But the mere fact that its possible terrifies doctors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Top