do you guys hate lawyers yet?

[nowanmd]

During my orientation in medical school one of the professors joked that in your med school acceptance letter there was an "I hate lawyers virus"- it was a joke, but now that I'm 16 years out of medical school i'm convinced i have that virus.
I';m a practicing internist in an inner city hospital and almost all the docs I know have been sued at least once (although most of these cases were dismissed).

I have friends who are corporate attorneys and quite honestly they find these personal injury/med mal lawyers an embarassment. There are over 1 million attorneys in the USA- which leaves many of them fighting for the scraps (personal injury/med mal) I hope that there will be movement towards national tort reform so you guys won't have to face this.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TallScrubs]

No doubt. My views were sealed for good after seeing this:

http://skimthat.com/3054/aurora-shooting-victim-sues-movie-theater-for-negligence

Some dickhat lawyer is going to sue Warner Brothers because Batman was too violent? The guy WILLINGLY chose to go see the movie! And sue the doctors? Give me a break.

 

[Dave89]

do you guys hate lawyers yet?

Always have. It's practically a human instinct

 

[Parklife]

Sharks... all of them.

 

[Ravizzle]

Q: How can you tell if a lawyer is lying?
A: His lips are moving!

Sent from my Galaxy S2 via tapatalk

 

[KnuxNole]

Only the ugly ones or ones that aren't good in bed

 

[thepoopologist]

Maybe all doctors could stage a nationwide strike and...AHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[mjl1717]

Even Shakespeare is known to have stated:

1)**["Kill all the lawyers"]..

2)Oh, Look at John Edwards.. (made money ambulance chasing, to say the least)

3)Somehow they always seem unethical.

4)They just don't seem to have any class..

5)***But, If you get in a jam you want the sleazyist, salivating, dirt- bag in a nice suit..!

6) Ironically, they may not communicate properly to there clients and expect large sums of $$

7)Good punching bag/venting topic!

 

[siliso]

I'm married to a lawyer (prosecutor, not torts) and have been for many years, so no.

I don't even think personal injury or medical malpractice lawyers are devils. Malpractice really happens (even to good doctors, just like car accidents can happen to people who are normally good drivers) and people deserve to be compensated for the damage done to them when it happens. It's not nearly as easy to find a lawyer to take your malpractice case, and to win a malpractice case, as people tend to assume. There are more people who are injured by malpractice and don't sue, than there are uninjured fakers who do sue, by far.

 

[Gut Shot]

I'm married to a lawyer (prosecutor, not torts) and have been for many years, so no.

I don't even think personal injury or medical malpractice lawyers are devils. Malpractice really happens (even to good doctors, just like car accidents can happen to people who are normally good drivers) and people deserve to be compensated for the damage done to them when it happens. It's not nearly as easy to find a lawyer to take your malpractice case, and to win a malpractice case, as people tend to assume. There are more people who are injured by malpractice and don't sue, than there are uninjured fakers who do sue, by far.

Everyone hates lawyers, until they need one.

 

[link2swim06]

I'm married to a lawyer (prosecutor, not torts) and have been for many years, so no.

I don't even think personal injury or medical malpractice lawyers are devils. Malpractice really happens (even to good doctors, just like car accidents can happen to people who are normally good drivers) and people deserve to be compensated for the damage done to them when it happens. It's not nearly as easy to find a lawyer to take your malpractice case, and to win a malpractice case, as people tend to assume. There are more people who are injured by malpractice and don't sue, than there are uninjured fakers who do sue, by far.

I dont think anyone believes malpractice is "ok." The problem is it shouldn't be decided by people with no medical training. Basically we are having the poor suckers who can't get out of jury duty trying to decide if the result was a possible complication or something the doctor did.Considering the majority of the population doesn't even know what a thyroid gland or pancreas does...I dont think they should be deciding these matters.

 

[siliso]

Welp, that's a problem (or not, depending on how you see it) with the entire US judicial system as it has existed for 200 years, not a problem with lawyers. Although in my own state, malpractice cases do get reviewed by a board of physicians before moving on. They can't take away your right to sue, but they can offer an opinion that a case is founded or unfounded, which holds a fair bit of weight with judges and juries.

A malpractice case that actually goes to a jury is pretty rare, too.

 

[Shnurek]

Basically we are having the poor suckers who can't get out of jury duty trying to decide if the result was a possible complication or something the doctor did.

Haha reminds me of a quote, "Do you really want your fate decided by twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty?"

 

[KinasePro]

Everyone hates lawyers, until they need one.

Truth. Our justice system is practically glorified sophistry, so you'll need a good sophist on your side eventually.

I'll never understand criminal defense lawyers, though. Sure, I see the virtue of due process, but who could live with themselves after trying to deceive a jury into believing someone like Jerry Sandusky was innocent?

 

[tiedyeddog]

Grew up in a family of health care workers. It was instilled in me from birth.

My family told me they wouldn't hate me if I went into law but they would lose all respect for me.

 

[surftheiop]

Truth. Our justice system is practically glorified sophistry, so you'll need a good sophist on your side eventually.

I'll never understand criminal defense lawyers, though. Sure, I see the virtue of due process, but who could live with themselves after trying to deceive a jury into believing someone like Jerry Sandusky was innocent?

I asked one of my friend's Dad's this (he is now a judge, but used to do defense), and he said that it actually way more emotionally taxing defending someone who you think might actually be innocent, because its basically up to you to assure that their life doesn't get ruined.

When its fairly obvious that someone is guilty, its generally more about making sure that they are not being overcharged for extra charges they shouldn't be by prosecution, then advocating for fair sentencing, These high profiles cases might be a little different, but they are so rare.


And yeah to the OP- I think everyone tends to dislike lawyers, but as soon as someone wrongs you, we are running to get the biggest and baddest one we can find.

 

[NewYorkDoctors]

Don't forget lawyers also defend you against the ambulance chasers

 

[mjl1717]

Grew up in a family of health care workers. It was instilled in me from birth.

My family told me they wouldn't hate me if I went into law but they would lose all respect for me.

Right to the point!!

 

[Cramster]

At least they have balls!

Doctors as a whole are a bunch of panzy ass bitches. I like to think doctors are like samurai. Espousing unrealistic ideals that contribute to their detriment (eg. seppuku). Laywers are like ninjas and will do what is necessary to get the job done. While rationalizing that you're the one worthy of respect might make you feel good this is the type of coping you see a 5 year old do (eg. "you can't have this hot fudge sundae" "well I didn't want that hot fudge sundae anyways because... uhhh... because.... it's lame and uhhhh the fudge was only warm anyways... and uhhhh.... I believe it's only like good when its hot" "wtf yes you did want this hot fudge sundae, your rationalizations don't have a leg to stand on")

While doctors are continuing to rationalize (ie. make it okay in their minds and only in their minds) their inaction in improving the state of medicine, lawyers are laughing their asses off in the same way an adult laughs at the bull**** their five year old spouts. That's what this entire thread is by the way.

 

[laxplayanumba16]

At least they have balls!

Doctors as a whole are a bunch of panzy ass bitches. I like to think doctors are like samurai. Espousing unrealistic ideals that contribute to their detriment (eg. seppuku). Laywers are like ninjas and will do what is necessary to get the job done. While rationalizing that you're the one worthy of respect might make you feel good this is the type of coping you see a 5 year old do (eg. "you can't have this hot fudge sundae" "well I didn't want that hot fudge sundae anyways because... uhhh... because.... it's lame and uhhhh the fudge was only warm anyways... and uhhhh.... I believe it's only like good when its hot" "wtf yes you did want this hot fudge sundae, your rationalizations don't have a leg to stand on")

While doctors are continuing to rationalize (ie. make it okay in their minds and only in their minds) their inaction in improving the state of medicine, lawyers are laughing their asses off in the same way an adult laughs at the bull**** their five year old spouts. That's what this entire thread is by the way.

...What did I just read?

 

[FSU2013]

Eh, I come from an entire family of lawyers (4 in my direct family) and they aren't that bad. Mind you, it can get pretty boring come Christmas or Thanksgiving, but the lawyers we should hate are only a small subset (as previously alluded to). One lawyer in my family went to Iraq to prosecute war criminals, promoting the safety of our troops. Another just general law for a county. A lot of this stuff is pretty benign.

 

[nabilesmail]

At least they have balls!

Doctors as a whole are a bunch of panzy ass bitches. I like to think doctors are like samurai. Espousing unrealistic ideals that contribute to their detriment (eg. seppuku). Laywers are like ninjas and will do what is necessary to get the job done. While rationalizing that you're the one worthy of respect might make you feel good this is the type of coping you see a 5 year old do (eg. "you can't have this hot fudge sundae" "well I didn't want that hot fudge sundae anyways because... uhhh... because.... it's lame and uhhhh the fudge was only warm anyways... and uhhhh.... I believe it's only like good when its hot" "wtf yes you did want this hot fudge sundae, your rationalizations don't have a leg to stand on")

While doctors are continuing to rationalize (ie. make it okay in their minds and only in their minds) their inaction in improving the state of medicine, lawyers are laughing their asses off in the same way an adult laughs at the bull**** their five year old spouts. That's what this entire thread is by the way.

shut up lol

 

[TallScrubs]

Truth. Our justice system is practically glorified sophistry, so you'll need a good sophist on your side eventually.

I'll never understand criminal defense lawyers, though. Sure, I see the virtue of due process, but who could live with themselves after trying to deceive a jury into believing someone like Jerry Sandusky was innocent?

I'm glad you appreciate Jason Kelce's magnificent hair as much as I. I was at camp twice last week and it's even better up close.

Oh, and **** all the lawyers.

 

[mjl1717]

At least they have balls!

Doctors as a whole are a bunch of panzy ass bitches. I like to think doctors are like samurai. Espousing unrealistic ideals that contribute to their detriment (eg. seppuku). Laywers are like ninjas and will do what is necessary to get the job done. While rationalizing that you're the one worthy of respect might make you feel good this is the type of coping you see a 5 year old do (eg. "you can't have this hot fudge sundae" "well I didn't want that hot fudge sundae anyways because... uhhh... because.... it's lame and uhhhh the fudge was only warm anyways... and uhhhh.... I believe it's only like good when its hot" "wtf yes you did want this hot fudge sundae, your rationalizations don't have a leg to stand on")

While doctors are continuing to rationalize (ie. make it okay in their minds and only in their minds) their inaction in improving the state of medicine, lawyers are laughing their asses off in the same way an adult laughs at the bull**** their five year old spouts. That's what this entire thread is by the way.

I don't totally agree..But even if the doc acts "like a girl" as far as political accomplishments.. At least he gets "RESPECT" (it means alot to me and Rodney Dangerfield)

 

[KinasePro]

I'm glad you appreciate Jason Kelce's magnificent hair as much as I. I was at camp twice last week and it's even better up close.

Nice! Viking beard ftw.

I'm jealous though, I've been meaning to make it up to Lehigh at some point, but will probably have to wait a few yrs.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

At least they have balls!

Doctors as a whole are a bunch of panzy ass bitches. I like to think doctors are like samurai. Espousing unrealistic ideals that contribute to their detriment (eg. seppuku). Laywers are like ninjas and will do what is necessary to get the job done. While rationalizing that you're the one worthy of respect might make you feel good this is the type of coping you see a 5 year old do (eg. "you can't have this hot fudge sundae" "well I didn't want that hot fudge sundae anyways because... uhhh... because.... it's lame and uhhhh the fudge was only warm anyways... and uhhhh.... I believe it's only like good when its hot" "wtf yes you did want this hot fudge sundae, your rationalizations don't have a leg to stand on")

While doctors are continuing to rationalize (ie. make it okay in their minds and only in their minds) their inaction in improving the state of medicine, lawyers are laughing their asses off in the same way an adult laughs at the bull**** their five year old spouts. That's what this entire thread is by the way.

lol what exactly inspired you to post this after posting nothing for a year

 

[Cramster]

lol what exactly inspired you to post this after posting nothing for a year

I'm between my 1st and 2nd year and have been watching martial arts films.

 

[RomanTaylor]

At least they have balls!

Doctors as a whole are a bunch of panzy ass bitches. I like to think doctors are like samurai. Espousing unrealistic ideals that contribute to their detriment (eg. seppuku). Laywers are like ninjas and will do what is necessary to get the job done. While rationalizing that you're the one worthy of respect might make you feel good this is the type of coping you see a 5 year old do (eg. "you can't have this hot fudge sundae" "well I didn't want that hot fudge sundae anyways because... uhhh... because.... it's lame and uhhhh the fudge was only warm anyways... and uhhhh.... I believe it's only like good when its hot" "wtf yes you did want this hot fudge sundae, your rationalizations don't have a leg to stand on")

While doctors are continuing to rationalize (ie. make it okay in their minds and only in their minds) their inaction in improving the state of medicine, lawyers are laughing their asses off in the same way an adult laughs at the bull**** their five year old spouts. That's what this entire thread is by the way.

Lol, brilliant.

 

[santor]

I'm married to a lawyer (prosecutor, not torts) and have been for many years, so no.

I don't even think personal injury or medical malpractice lawyers are devils. Malpractice really happens (even to good doctors, just like car accidents can happen to people who are normally good drivers) and people deserve to be compensated for the damage done to them when it happens. It's not nearly as easy to find a lawyer to take your malpractice case, and to win a malpractice case, as people tend to assume. There are more people who are injured by malpractice and don't sue, than there are uninjured fakers who do sue, by far.

.I agree. .

.I am currently working for a med mal lawyer in California, while applying to medical school. Besides the fact that it is great because I am learning a ton of medicine, I also have the advantage of seeing the inter-workings of a medical malpractice law office. However, our office is unique given that the lawyer is also a practicing ER doc, so I can definitely not speak for all law offices. The lawyer is also unique in that he is also a great person who routinely goes on Global Medical Brigade trips and is very passionate about what he does. .

.During my first week on the job he made it very clear that we were not the “blood sucking ambulance chasers” that some people may think that we are. As a legal assistant I am responsible for doing the intakes on potential cases, which is where I get the summaries of cases from people who feel that they, or a loved one, were treated below the standard of care. As far as numbers go, our office gets over 600 calls a year, and we usually only end up filing around 10 of those “potential” law suits. As you can see almost 99% of calls are not worth pursuing. It frustrates me that so many calls are the result of known complications to surgeries/ unpreventable bad outcomes. It seems that for a lot of the people, when something goes wrong, their first instinct is to call a lawyer and sue before looking at the facts. .

.Of course, the argument can be made that the lay person does not understand what happened medically, so it is their right to call someone and find out if it was malpractice. But placing all of this responsibility on lawyers (most of whom have no formal medical training) is not fair either. Lawyers simply do not have the time to look over hundreds of pages of medical records from every caller (one of the reasons that I screen calls). Unfortunately, I think that many people now have a knee-jerk reaction (patellar reflex) to sue for everything, which is now the source of many of our legal system’s woes. That is not to say that all lawyers should get away scot-free, because someone has to bring these ridiculous cases to court. .

.In the end, I think that a reasonable solution to the frivolous med mal cases (by lawyers who have no medical training) would be to have a medical review board that reviews all med mal cases prior to being brought to court. I know that this would just create more bureaucracy, but it would help to protect the doctors and keep the lawyers honest. .

 

[Socrates25]

When its fairly obvious that someone is guilty, its generally more about making sure that they are not being overcharged for extra charges they shouldn't be by prosecution, then advocating for fair sentencing, These high profiles cases might be a little different, but they are so rare.

BS. If the defense lawyer sniffs a chance at the jury getting fooled and falling for not guilty, they'll take it every time. And the defense lawyer will lie shamelessly to achieve that end too.

Being "fair" or looking for "truth" has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

 

[siliso]

What are you basing that on, viewing Nancy Grace and/or L&O? In the real world defense lawyers want an efficient plea deal that their client will go for.

 

[jojoflynmonky]

I think tort reform is inevitable, especially if our economy is going to even attempt to withstand the economic burden of the new healthcare law.

 

[Courtjester8]

I find it odd that during my father's fight with cancer, my family had no less than 8 doctors tell us to sue 2 of his treating physicians with the knowledge that they'd have never offered this advice had my mother not worked in the same hospital. Like someone earlier mentioned, I think this has much more to do with lawyers being left scraps. They'll take any case regardless of validity just to amass billable hours which does nothing but bog down the system and raise malpractice rates. If there were a way to make lawyers financially accountable for burdening the system in this way, I bet you see a sharp decline in malpractice suits. One problem I see outright is that all the financial incentive in law is in the prosecution of these civil suits and not their defense. There's also a problem with the overall culture of this country. Shows like Judge Judy have turned winning a lawsuit into part of the American dream. Juries award insane amounts of money that completely outpace the damages done to people that have been harmed. This is where my knowledge of the system gets fuzzy but I'm not sure whether or not there is a reasonable way to establish financial damages or even if there is a systematic approach to it at all (especially when you get into the realm of emotional/psychological damages. Instead of paying a lump sum at that rate, wouldn't it make more sense to have the person who ends up paying the damages pay for psychological treatment directly? The person then stops wasting their time getting treatment when they are feeling better. Honestly, the legal system and its part in medicine is something I would love to know more about, and if I could do it all over again, I would have gotten started on this whole process as an undergraduate instead of trying to enter med school at the age of 28 so that I could enter an MD/JD program.

Just as an aside, most of what I said here is founded on observation which very well may not be rooted in fact. If anything I said here is wrong, I would really appreciate it if someone would set me straight and or direct me somewhere where I would be able to read more on the topic. And if I have mentioned something that is false, I apologize in advance.

Discussions like this are why I really appreciate SDN.

-cj8

 

[Courtjester8]

At least they have balls!

Doctors as a whole are a bunch of panzy ass bitches. I like to think doctors are like samurai. Espousing unrealistic ideals that contribute to their detriment (eg. seppuku). Laywers are like ninjas and will do what is necessary to get the job done. While rationalizing that you're the one worthy of respect might make you feel good this is the type of coping you see a 5 year old do (eg. "you can't have this hot fudge sundae" "well I didn't want that hot fudge sundae anyways because... uhhh... because.... it's lame and uhhhh the fudge was only warm anyways... and uhhhh.... I believe it's only like good when its hot" "wtf yes you did want this hot fudge sundae, your rationalizations don't have a leg to stand on")

While doctors are continuing to rationalize (ie. make it okay in their minds and only in their minds) their inaction in improving the state of medicine, lawyers are laughing their asses off in the same way an adult laughs at the bull**** their five year old spouts. That's what this entire thread is by the way.

And this is what makes me want to sterilize certain people on SDN.

Ideals give us something to aspire to--a reason to want to improve ourselves and society. I'll take an idealist over an egotistical, malevolent pragmatist any day.

-cj8

 

[ucladoc2b]

If there were a way to make lawyers financially accountable for burdening the system in this way, I bet you see a sharp decline in malpractice suits. One problem I see outright is that all the financial incentive in law is in the prosecution of these civil suits and not their defense.

There are a few mechanisms where lawyers are held accountable for med mal cases. Most plantif cases are paid based on the damages awarded (so the lawyers do not get paid if they do not win), which is a disincentive to try to take the case. Hence, the billable hours for plantifs really is not an issue (and actually, the defense attorney is the one who is paid hourly). Legally, there are caps on attorney fees collected for med mal, and if a lawsuit is frivolous, the plantif can be ordered to pay the defense's attorney feels.

I have always wondered what is required to demonstrate neglegence in a med mal case (I really cannot see them as being easy to make/win). Maybe one of SDN's legal experts could chime in...

 

[Socrates25]

There are a few mechanisms where lawyers are held accountable for med mal cases. Most plantif cases are paid based on the damages awarded (so the lawyers do not get paid if they do not win), which is a disincentive to try to take the case. Hence, the billable hours for plantifs really is not an issue (and actually, the defense attorney is the one who is paid hourly). Legally, there are caps on attorney fees collected for med mal, and if a lawsuit is frivolous, the plantif can be ordered to pay the defense's attorney feels.

I have always wondered what is required to demonstrate neglegence in a med mal case (I really cannot see them as being easy to make/win). Maybe one of SDN's legal experts could chime in...

The courts favor a jackpot jury style of justice because one win in court pays for hundreds of loser cases. I know a med mal lawyer who only wins about 10% of the cases he takes to court and settles another 25%. So overall he's batting 35%, the other 65% result in no payment at all. Now in a sane system, that should mean that he's not doing that well financially. But to the contrary, the guy pulls in about 750k per year because those 10% are jackpots which pay for hundreds of lawsuits that get nothing at all.

In all 50 states, the legal requirement for negligence/malpractice is that a physician must break a "standard" of care. Sounds good, right? After all, if you break a "standard" then that must be negligence.

The rub is that the courts say you have to break a "standard" yet who defines what the standard is? Is it the medical societies which govern the discipline? No. Its a rogue ass hired gun expert ***** who determines what the "standard" is. Then you have a rebuttal "expert" on the defense side. So what the jury hears is 2 "experts" arguing in court, and that is supposed to give them guidance on if a "standard" of care is broken or not. It is absolute BS. Individual experts can NOT set "standards" yet that is EXACTLY what the courts use to determine if the legal standard of negligence is met.

 

[alamo4]

I know a lot of people now who have graduated from law school, and just had dinner with some. I don't think many are very happy, certainly no one I know loves their job, although one guy is going into politics, and I think that makes him happier. Overall they just put up with it.

Many overworked residents still seem to love their day to day, and things only get better. Medicine is inherently much more rewarding.

So I don't hate lawyers as a group, some are total douchebags, but a lot of people in medicine are too. Mostly I just feel sorry for them. It's kind of sucky work, and they are part of a sucky system; it's all the bad hierarchical, bureaucratic, conservative things in medicine, times 1000.

 

[Alvarez13]

And this is what makes me want to sterilize certain people on SDN.

Ideals give us something to aspire to--a reason to want to improve ourselves and society. I'll take an idealist over an egotistical, malevolent pragmatist any day.

-cj8

If you sterilize him he can still talk. I have a chainsaw in my garage that might work better.

However, I do agree with the person above who stated lawyers are *************'s until you need one.

 

[laxplayanumba16]

And this is what makes me want to sterilize certain people on SDN.

Ideals give us something to aspire to--a reason to want to improve ourselves and society. I'll take an idealist over an egotistical, malevolent pragmatist any day.

-cj8

If you sterilize him he can still talk. I have a chainsaw in my garage that might work better.

However, I do agree with the person above who stated lawyers are *************'s until you need one.

Boy, that really escalated quickly.For the record, the nation's top medical students use samurai swords, not chainsaws. Perhaps Cramster is on to something with his analogy after all...

 

[Socrates25]

Boy, that really escalated quickly.For the record, the nation's top medical students use samurai swords, not chainsaws. Perhaps Cramster is on to something with his analogy after all...

That article is wrong. He was a JHU undergrad, not a med student.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...076_1_samurai-sword-samurai-weapon-pontolillo

 

[krem]

Not sure if anyone is still reading this thread, but I see things a little differently. Simply put:

The government has granted me a monopoly to practice my specialty, and the cost of that monopoly is liability, enforced by medical malpractice attorneys.

More broadly, I am a radiologist, and my work could be done by doctors overseas willing to work much cheaper than I could afford. Yes, preliminary reads do now often come from India or Australia, but final reads -- and the liability for those reads -- must come from someone that a lawyer in the USA can sue, if needed. In that sense, lawyers that sue doctors are my best friends. Without liability, I wouldn't have a monopoly. Remember, we have an 'adversarial' legal system, and that's not going to change.

 

[FunnyCurrent]

Not sure if anyone is still reading this thread, but I see things a little differently. Simply put:

The government has granted me a monopoly to practice my specialty, and the cost of that monopoly is liability, enforced by medical malpractice attorneys.

More broadly, I am a radiologist, and my work could be done by doctors overseas willing to work much cheaper than I could afford. Yes, preliminary reads do now often come from India or Australia, but final reads -- and the liability for those reads -- must come from someone that a lawyer in the USA can sue, if needed. In that sense, lawyers that sue doctors are my best friends. Without liability, I wouldn't have a monopoly. Remember, we have an 'adversarial' legal system, and that's not going to change.

Remember, we have an 'adversarial' legal system, and that's not going to change. As a result, even if physicians lacked a monopoly there would still be liability enforced by medical malpractice attorneys. Even if there were idiots walking around selling hemlock there would still be liability for those individuals (though in line with their earnings and limited by the ability of patients to identify liability). Finally, even if those people started taking patients from doctors, physicians would continue to get sued for quantities that their salaries/medmal (perhaps lower?) would permit. The only difference between "ooo-eee" the local Witchdoctor and a real doctor is that when **** goes wrong, disappointed patients immediately point fingers at the MD. This occurs because
1. physicians have high salaries that can support a medmal insurance system that makes big payouts (the monopoly is a part of this)
2. patients are not aware of the limitations of modern medicine and potential for adverse outcomes.
3. physicians are the only ones expected to be uniformly competent
4. to patients, competent physicians do not produce adverse outcomes.

 

[ucladoc2b]

Remember, we have an 'adversarial' legal system, and that's not going to change. As a result, even if physicians lacked a monopoly there would still be liability enforced by medical malpractice attorneys. Even if there were idiots walking around selling hemlock there would still be liability for those individuals (though in line with their earnings and limited by the ability of patients to identify liability). Finally, even if those people started taking patients from doctors, physicians would continue to get sued for quantities that their salaries/medmal (perhaps lower?) would permit. The only difference between "ooo-eee" the local Witchdoctor and a real doctor is that when **** goes wrong, disappointed patients immediately point fingers at the MD. This occurs because
1. physicians have high salaries that can support a medmal insurance system that makes big payouts (the monopoly is a part of this)
2. patients are not aware of the limitations of modern medicine and potential for adverse outcomes.
3. physicians are the only ones expected to be uniformly competent
4. to patients, competent physicians do not produce adverse outcomes.

Salaries do not dictate the payouts. Damages resulting from the negligence of the provider usually dictate the payout, and this is up to the plantiff to prove. It's kind of the same deal for any business.

Overall, adverse outcomes, are pretty difficult to sue for, as far as I can tell.

 

[Kadava Reviva]

During my orientation in medical school one of the professors joked that in your med school acceptance letter there was an "I hate lawyers virus"- it was a joke, but now that I'm 16 years out of medical school i'm convinced i have that virus.
I';m a practicing internist in an inner city hospital and almost all the docs I know have been sued at least once (although most of these cases were dismissed).

I have friends who are corporate attorneys and quite honestly they find these personal injury/med mal lawyers an embarassment. There are over 1 million attorneys in the USA- which leaves many of them fighting for the scraps (personal injury/med mal) I hope that there will be movement towards national tort reform so you guys won't have to face this.

A lawyer can be your best ally, or your worst adversary.
I only hate the ambulance chasers. I'm very happy to practice in the Canadian military, where there are no malpractice suits against physicians. In addition, there are few frivolous lawsuits in Canada and very few ambulance chasers. But, Canada often follows American trends. Hopefully not this one.

To sum it up, only the ambulance chasing vultures.

 

[Renaissance Man]

I just read Morton's Fork by Dr. Coy, and it definitely made me "dislike" lawyers. I obviously don't have any experience with them, but the way malpractice suits work in most states is disheartening.

 

[Dartmouth2005]

During my orientation in medical school one of the professors joked that in your med school acceptance letter there was an "I hate lawyers virus"- it was a joke, but now that I'm 16 years out of medical school i'm convinced i have that virus.
I';m a practicing internist in an inner city hospital and almost all the docs I know have been sued at least once (although most of these cases were dismissed).

I have friends who are corporate attorneys and quite honestly they find these personal injury/med mal lawyers an embarassment. There are over 1 million attorneys in the USA- which leaves many of them fighting for the scraps (personal injury/med mal) I hope that there will be movement towards national tort reform so you guys won't have to face this.

The problem of there being too many lawyers is a direct result of the law school scam. Support LST and things may change. Also, the fraud law suits against the schools are helping to bring enrollments down.

Moving on, you are also being too hard on PI lawyers.

Do you like car windows that shatter in collisions instead of cutting you to pieces? If yes, then that was the work of a PI lawyer.

Do you like cars that don't explode upon impact? Same again.

A lot of the safety features that we have in today's products is the result of PI lawyers. And there are also countless other benefits that we have from their work like safe drinking water.

Nothing makes a multinational corporation change unsafe practices like having to cut a large check.

 

[Dartmouth2005]

In all 50 states, the legal requirement for negligence/malpractice is that a physician must break a "standard" of care. Sounds good, right? After all, if you break a "standard" then that must be negligence.

Not quite. Close.

The elements of negligence are:

(1) duty;
(2) breach of that duty;
(3) causation;
(4) scope; and
(5) damages.

Duty is established pretty much when you take on a patient.

Breach is usually determined by what a reasonably prudent physician would have done. If the accused physician does not do what the reasonably prudent physician would have done (i.e. breaches), then we look to whether that breach proximately (#4) caused (#3) damages (#5) that the plaintiff sustained.

The above can be modified depending on which state the physician is in. For example, in Nebraska, it is virtually impossible to successfully sue a physician for malpractice.

 

[link2swim06]

Not quite. Close.

The elements of negligence are:

(1) duty;
(2) breach of that duty;
(3) causation;
(4) scope; and
(5) damages.

Duty is established pretty much when you take on a patient.

Breach is usually determined by what a reasonably prudent physician would have done. If the accused physician does not do what the reasonably prudent physician would have done (i.e. breaches), then we look to whether that breach proximately (#4) caused (#3) damages (#5) that the plaintiff sustained.

The above can be modified depending on which state the physician is in. For example, in Nebraska, it is virtually impossible to successfully sue a physician for malpractice.

 

[High Roller]

Truth. Our justice system is practically glorified sophistry, so you'll need a good sophist on your side eventually.

I'll never understand criminal defense lawyers, though. Sure, I see the virtue of due process, but who could live with themselves after trying to deceive a jury into believing someone like Jerry Sandusky was innocent?

I always saw it the opposite- Every individual deserves representation in the courtroom. I know if I'm ever accused of anything, I hope the guy representing me is on top of his game and willing to represent me, no matter the charges.

Prosecutors are the ultimate slime bags in my book. Their job is to basically screw people over. They make a living out of trying to imprison people in a country that already has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Maybe I'm too much of an idealist, but I'd rather see 100 guilty fellas get off than 1 innocent guy get screwed over.

 

[KinasePro]

I always saw it the opposite- Every individual deserves representation in the courtroom. I know if I'm ever accused of anything, I hope the guy representing me is on top of his game and willing to represent me, no matter the charges.

Prosecutors are the ultimate slime bags in my book. Their job is to basically screw people over. They make a living out of trying to imprison people in a country that already has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Maybe I'm too much of an idealist, but I'd rather see 100 guilty fellas get off than 1 innocent guy get screwed over.

I agree that everyone is entitled to a defense, no doubt about it. But I've met a handful of public defenders that just turn my stomach. One professor of mine (a former PD) would brag about how he was able to weasel out of rape and DUI charges for his 100% guilty defendants. What kind of service to society is that? Their credo is to get the client off with as little punishment as possible, even if the client committed the crime. I just don't understand why anyone would want to do that, especially in cases where the defendant was clearly putting the lives of others at risk.

Also, I've heard the argument that 100 guilty should go free instead of a single wrongful punishment, and I don't think I can agree. What if those 100 guilty then rape & murder 200 innocent people? I'd consider that a failure of the justice system. Put another way, this is basically a sensitivity vs specificity argument. Would you rather have a cancer screening test that is 100% sensitive and 99% specific or 1% sensitive and 100% specific? I'd pick the former.