Doctors are refusing to treat Lawyers and their families!

[juddson]

Ha ha. Too bad, but lawyers broke the system and now they are crying about it. They are the ones who don't care about the TRUE punitive costs; their mentality is "give me as much as possible ...and then DOUBLE it!" Don't lecture US about the "real" cost of an injury because that's the LAST thing on a lawyer's mind. As usual, though, you are pretending to take the high road, bleeding in the streets because your clients are being abused, right? It has nothing to do with lawyers making less money, right? 🙄 And of course you would prefer lay people to make the decisions on how much to dole out -- that way, you can take advantage of jackpot juries, whose idea of logic is "hey, the hospital makes a lot of money, so they can afford this! It's time we got ours!"

Now you're just flailing about wildly. I'm not lecturing you. I'm saying there is no basis to to suggest that doctors know the "value" of an injury more than a lay person does. Doctors don't feel pain differently. They don't have greater insight into what it means to lose a child. How is this "taking the high road"?

BTW, on what basis do you presume that I am looking out for the income of my "brethren". I'm going into medicine. I was never a med mal attorney to begin with. I didn't even litigate. It won't be enough for you to simply impune my motives you will actually have to address the arguments at some point.

Judd


Judd

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[kinetic]

Now you're just flailing about wildly. I'm not lecturing you. I'm saying there is no basis to to suggest that doctors know the "value" of an injury more than a lay person does. Doctors don't feel pain differently. They don't have greater insight into what it means to lose a child. How is this "taking the high road"?

BTW, on what basis do you presume that I am looking out for the income of my "brethren". I'm going into medicine. I was never a med mal attorney to begin with. I didn't even litigate. It won't be enough for you to simply impune my motives you will actually have to address the arguments at some point.

Judd


Judd

Now you're just rambling on like a senile *****. (Hey, starting off my post with a subjective insult IS fun! Thanks, Judd!) If laypeople are just as adept at interpreting how painful something is, then why do you prefer them? Hmm?

BTW, you are the one who has posted a number of times that you are a lawyer. And thanks for signing your post twice.

 

[hakksar]

The non-economic damages are not meant to be punitive. They are "compensatory". They are designed to "compensate" the victim for the intangible loss associated with the loss of limb or bodily function, or perhaps the loss of a life of a child with little or no earning potential (and therefore no "economic" compensatory damages).

I know they were meant to be compensatory (as well as punitive). However, as I stated it is impossible to adequately compensate someone for death, loss of limb, pain, etc. since money will never bring any of these things back. I think it is wrong to compensate an intangible loss with a tangible economic loss (maybe the offending parties guilt is so extreme that they are suffering more the person harmed). Compensating intangible losses turns tragedy into a lottery ticket. Therefore, the only fair reason to have non-economic damages is to punish the offending party so that they do not offend again.

edit: BTW, I noticed your Republican argument in your response to me . . . I happen to be a proud liberal . . . I just think our tort system is broke.

 

[juddson]

Never said there was an obligation to treat lawyers, eh?

How about: "No legal duty. This is true." (Implying there is a moral duty to treat lawyers.)

Or:

It is legally defensible, but ethically suspect.

And as for the rest of your argument, read your own post. You prove my point. It's all dollars and cents. Which is fine. But note that when you defend lawyers, it's all "we're here to protect your liberties ...without us you'd have no rights, blah blah blah." That's my point. Hypocrisy in action.

Perhaps you will never quite get it. I have bent over backwards to explain to you that reforms such as caps and ethical rule changes are not principled and reasoned, and lead to perverse and inequitable results - and that these reforms should be rejected on those grounds. I have also said that these reforms should be rejected because they make pursuing even meritorious claims economically impossible. These are two sides of the same coin. There is no hypocracy there.

Perhaps you will be able to understand it better if I talk of doctors rather than attorneys. It's IMPORTANT, from my perspective, that we have good and adaquate medical care in the US. BUT, I reject a system that would make provision of that care economically impossible (such as capping physican salaries at $25,000 a year). According to you, this is "hypocracy in action". It's all "dollars and cents" because I think docs should not have to work for $25,000 a year (or even at a loss) but then I'm all in your face with "we need good medical care and patient access". Oh the hypocracy. 🙄

judd

 

[juddson]

Now you're just rambling on like a senile *****. (Hey, starting off my post with a subjective insult IS fun! Thanks, Judd!) If laypeople are just as adept at interpreting how painful something is, then why do you prefer them? Hmm?

[/quote

I have no preference for lay people. They are just as good as engineers, lawyers, doctors, scientists, whoever. My ONLY preference for a jury is that it not be made up of people who have a personal or professional interest in the outcome. fair enough?

And thanks for signing your post twice.

😱 proof I have the wrong end of this argument, then.

Judd

 

[kinetic]

No, you're the one who still doesn't get it. The system was broken by lawyers. The solution may not be perfect, but it was necessitated by LAWYERS. Lawyers didn't care at all about what was "fair compensation" in the past ...they just wanted to bleed everyone dry. Now all of a sudden, we're talking about "what is fair for the patient" and "how this will affect the patient". Riiiiiight.

 

[kinetic]

😱 proof I have the wrong end of this argument, then.

Judd

When did I say that had anything to do with your argument? I was just making fun of you for a completely isolated incident. Does everything have to revolve around the topic of the thread?

 

[flighterdoc]

No, you're the one who still doesn't get it. The system was broken by lawyers. The solution may not be perfect, but it was necessitated by LAWYERS. Lawyers didn't care at all about what was "fair compensation" in the past ...they just wanted to bleed everyone dry. Now all of a sudden, we're talking about "what is fair for the patient" and "how this will affect the patient". Riiiiiight.

Not only that, but the so-called unfair reforms (like caps) are passed by the legislatures, which are filled with and lobbied heavily with lawyers. Asking lawyers to "fix" anything is asking them to take a bad situation and make it worse.

 

[kinetic]

I have no preference for lay people. They are just as good as engineers, lawyers, doctors, scientists, whoever. My ONLY preference for a jury is that it not be made up of people who have a personal or professional interest in the outcome. fair enough?

In theory, yes. In practice, no. That's the kind of jury we have today. Technically, they have no personal or professional interest in the awards. But they hand out cash like it grows on trees because of their attitudes towards physicians, who are percieved to be "rich like Nazis" (to quote Homer Simpson) and can take any financial hit (class envy/warfare, anyone?).

 

[superdevil]

That is what I said. In the aggregate, marginal income exceeds marginal costs.

my bad, judd. i read too fast and mistook that statement as medicare payments *themselves* exceeding associated costs. oh well.

 

[juddson]

I know they were meant to be compensatory (as well as punitive). However, as I stated it is impossible to adequately compensate someone for death, loss of limb, pain, etc. since money will never bring any of these things back. I think it is wrong to compensate an intangible loss with a tangible economic loss (maybe the offending parties guilt is so extreme that they are suffering more the person harmed). Compensating intangible losses turns tragedy into a lottery ticket. Therefore, the only fair reason to have non-economic damages is to punish the offending party so that they do not offend again.

No, you are right about this. I'm guessing that no matter HOW MUCH money somebody gets for the loss of a part or function, they would gladly give it back in exchange for its restoration. That does not mean that the only compensation we know how to give is not ethically due.

edit: BTW, I noticed your Republican argument in your response to me . . . I happen to be a proud liberal . . . I just think our tort system is broke.

No, not directed at you. This issue regarding protecting doctors from frivilous suits is NOT a republican thing. The sad part is that this is supported by Republicans because of its other often overlooked effects, which are to protect big pharma, medical device manufacturers and large healthcare organizations. For instance, I recall a large pharma company (can't remember who) has just settled with a class and the FDA over some supressed medical data regarding one of its products (a weight loss drug, if I recall). Under these caps this company would NEVER have settled. It did 6 billion in revenue last year (or was that quarter?). What's $250,000?

Judd

 

[stinkycheese]

Unfortunately doctors aren't sued just for the egregious and obvious violations of medical practice and ethics. The fact is that people are suing (and winning) because they didn't get the results that they wanted, regardless of whether or not it was a result of mal-practice.

A doctor I know is an excellent, well-respected opthalmologist who is 20 years PG.

15 years ago, about five years into his private clinical practice, he had an urgent call from parents of an infant who said that their GP had referred them to the opthalmologist because the baby had some sort of glaucoma. At 5:00pm that night, they rushed into his office. He told them that he could not perform the necessary treatments right then, but that he would do so immediately the next morning. The next day, he successfully performed treatment and followed up with this patient for several years. The child developed normal vision, but did need glasses (as many people do!)

When the child turned 14, the parents sued this opthalmologist for malpractice, stating that if he had treated the child when they brought him (unannounced) to his office, the child wouldn't need glasses today.

They won a $12 million dollar settlement and put this physician out of practice until he won an appeal.

 

[juddson]

Lawyers didn't care at all about what was "fair compensation" in the past ...they just wanted to bleed everyone dry. Now all of a sudden, we're talking about "what is fair for the patient" and "how this will affect the patient". Riiiiiight.

You have no basis to make this claim. Lawyers are just like everybody else.

That's like me saying that doctors in the past only cared about money. But now that socialized medicine is a possibility, it's all about the "best medical care, blah blah blah. "Riiiiiiiight."

Both arguments are stupid and have no basis on fact.

Judd

 

[juddson]

In theory, yes. In practice, no. That's the kind of jury we have today. Technically, they have no personal or professional interest in the awards. But they hand out cash like it grows on trees because of their attitudes towards physicians, who are percieved to be "rich like Nazis" (to quote Homer Simpson) and can take any financial hit (class envy/warfare, anyone?).

This is not supported in fact. I think doctors are JUST as sympathetic to patients as lay people are. Why wouldn't they be?

Judd

 

[kinetic]

You have no basis to make this claim. Lawyers are just like everybody else.

I don't? Wow! Amazing! I guess everyone just decided to get together one day and start badmouthing lawyers because we drew their name out of a hat. "Lawyers are just like everyone else"? Now THERE'S a claim without basis.

 

[kinetic]

This is not supported in fact. I think doctors are JUST as sympathetic to patients as lay people are. Why wouldn't they be?

Judd

We're talking about jury awards. Your attempt at deliberate misinterpretation of my statement is great.

 

[hakksar]

I agree that $250,000 is not adequate compensation for a death (but neither is $10 million) . . . I do feel that there is a punitive function that has value. I also agree that $250,000 is not punitive for big pharma etc. However, for most physicians it is more than punitive. I would propose non-economic caps that are graduated with the net worth of the offending party, but that would only encourage lawsuits against wealthy parties. To prevent this I would have a graduated non-economic cap but allow only a limited amount to go to the plaintiff, any amount awarded over this amount would go to an oversight agency (ie FDA for Pharm, State Medical Board for Physicians, etc). That would have the effect of punishing the offending party and increasing oversight of the industry while at the same time preventing frivolous lawsuits because there would be no potential million dollar payoff for just bringing the suit.

 

[juddson]

my bad, judd. i read too fast and mistook that statement as medicare payments *themselves* exceeding associated costs. oh well.

yes, that was the point I made. But I am willing to go one step farther, which is that docs would NOT take medicare if IN FACT margin costs exceeded marginal income when considering medicare UNLESS there was some other incentive to take medicare (or disincentive to give it up). doctors are rational economic actors like everybody else. I simply refuse to accept the notion that doctors have some special sense of altruism that compells them to work at an economic loss. As evidence of this I point to those docs who IN FACT do stop coming to work in so-called "crisis" states.

doctors are like everybody else. in the aggregate they don't want to work for free if they don't have to.

Judd

 

[juddson]

A doctor I know is an excellent, well-respected opthalmologist who is 20 years PG.

15 years ago, about five years into his private clinical practice, he had an urgent call from parents of an infant who said that their GP had referred them to the opthalmologist because the baby had some sort of glaucoma. At 5:00pm that night, they rushed into his office. He told them that he could not perform the necessary treatments right then, but that he would do so immediately the next morning. The next day, he successfully performed treatment and followed up with this patient for several years. The child developed normal vision, but did need glasses (as many people do!)

When the child turned 14, the parents sued this opthalmologist for malpractice, stating that if he had treated the child when they brought him (unannounced) to his office, the child wouldn't need glasses today.

They won a $12 million dollar settlement and put this physician out of practice until he won an appeal.

that's incredible.

Judd

 

[juddson]

I don't? Wow! Amazing! I guess everyone just decided to get together one day and start badmouthing lawyers because we drew their name out of a hat. "Lawyers are just like everyone else"? Now THERE'S a claim without basis.

Yes, it is unfortunate that people have felt this way about attorneys for a long time. It used to be acceptable to suggest Jews were cheap as well. Thankfully, it is no longer acceptable to make one of those remarks.

Judd

 

[juddson]

We're talking about jury awards. Your attempt at deliberate misinterpretation of my statement is great.

Pardon? I was talking about jury awards. Why would a juror doctor be less sympathetic to a patient than a lay juror? How have I missrepresented you?

Judd

 

[kinetic]

Yes, it is unfortunate that people have felt this way about attorneys for a long time. It used to be acceptable to suggest Jews were cheap as well. Thankfully, it is no longer acceptable to make one of those remarks.

Judd

Woooooo! Nice! Associating ripping on lawyers with anti-Semitism! Me likey. It's ALMOST like the Holocaust, but not quite. This is getting juicy. Now, talk about how capping lawsuits is like "slavery."

 

[superdevil]

I simply refuse to accept the notion that doctors have some special sense of altruism that compells them to work at an economic loss.

when this occurs (and, episodically, not in aggregate, it does) i don't even think the doctors themselves would cite altruism. maybe feelings of guilt or a fear of people taking a moral highground against them for trying to make a business decision? i'm no psychotherapist, though.

carry on with your thread, fellas. 👍
sd

 

[juddson]

I agree that $250,000 is not adequate compensation for a death (but neither is $10 million) . . . I do feel that there is a punitive function that has value. I also agree that $250,000 is not punitive for big pharma etc. However, for most physicians it is more than punitive. I would propose non-economic caps that are graduated with the net worth of the offending party, but that would only encourage lawsuits against wealthy parties. To prevent this I would have a graduated non-economic cap but allow only a limited amount to go to the plaintiff, any amount awarded over this amount would go to an oversight agency (ie FDA for Pharm, State Medical Board for Physicians, etc). That would have the effect of punishing the offending party and increasing oversight of the industry while at the same time preventing frivolous lawsuits because there would be no potential million dollar payoff for just bringing the suit.

I think punishment is only appropriate for excessive culpability, such as malice or recklessness or perhaps gross negligence. Most malpractice is simple negligence - an unintentional deviation (for whatever reason) from what the standard of care. Ie, an honest mistake.

"honest mistakes" get up the feathers of many people here because, after all, everybody makes honest mistakes. But I submit that "compensation" is still due. For instance, failing to stop at a red light (assuming no dui, reckless driving, etc.) because you "didn't see it" is an "honest mistake". But here few would argue that the offending party should not have to compensate the injured driver for this "honest mistake". right?

BTW, this debate is SOOOOO much more productive than the stupid back and forth I'm having with Kinetic over who loves money more.

Judd

 

[juddson]

Woooooo! Nice! Associating ripping on lawyers with anti-Semitism! Me likey. It's ALMOST like the Holocaust, but not quite. This is getting juicy. Now, talk about how capping lawsuits is like "slavery."

NO. It to suggest that long held prejudices can have no basis in fact. But you knew that was my point, didn't you.

Lawyers are hardly oppressed. In fact, I'd suggest only one other professional group is less oppressed.

Judd

 

[juddson]

when this occurs (and, episodically, not in aggregate, it does) i don't even think the doctors themselves would cite altruism. maybe feelings of guilt or a fear of people taking a moral highground against them for trying to make a business decision? i'm no psychotherapist, though.

carry on with your thread, fellas. 👍
sd

agree with this 100%.

Judd

 

[samurai_lincoln]

I think punishment is only appropriate for excessive culpability, such as malice or recklessness or perhaps gross negligence. Most malpractice is simple negligence - an unintentional deviation (for whatever reason) from what the standard of care. Ie, an honest mistake.

"honest mistakes" get up the feathers of many people here because, after all, everybody makes honest mistakes. But I submit that "compensation" is still due. For instance, failing to stop at a red light (assuming no dui, reckless driving, etc.) because you "didn't see it" is an "honest mistake". But here few would argue that the offending party should not have to compensate the injured driver for this "honest mistake". right?

BTW, this debate is SOOOOO much more productive than the stupid back and forth I'm having with Kinetic over who loves money more.

Judd

Whoa, this thread took off in a hurry! 🙂 I think Judd makes an important point here. This circumstances he describes above are in fact the current state of affairs regarding punitive damages. These jackpot punitive damage awards everyone fears (or craves, depending on your point of view) are not the norm for a garden variety screwup. Punitives may only be awarded in the case of gross negligence or worse, to include intentional harm or recklessness.

Alright, I have no brain cells active right now, time for bed.

 

[Gleevec]

Yes, it is unfortunate that people have felt this way about attorneys for a long time. It used to be acceptable to suggest Jews were cheap as well. Thankfully, it is no longer acceptable to make one of those remarks.

Judd

LOL, what's the name of that rule where as soon as someone mentions World War II, The Holocaust, Hitler, Nazis, etc, they automatically forfeit an argument on an internet thread?

 

[Gleevec]

While I was working out I saw on the CNN news ticker something along the lines of:

"Man diagnosed with anxiety the <day of> murdering wife and child sues hospital for $10 Million"

Yup, because we all know his doctors DIRECTLY CAUSED the murderer to kill his family.

I put "day of" in brackets because it was either the day of or day after or day before or something. I dont know about you, but most people with anxiety don't go murdering their families.

I guess there is no such thing as personal responsibility. Maybe everyone who gets rejected from Harvard Med should go sue their Ob/Gyn for malpractice 🙄 🙄 🙄

The sad thing is, I bet there are tons of lawyer scum out there ready to take up such a case.

 

[samurai_lincoln]

While I was working out I saw on the CNN news ticker something along the lines of:

"Man diagnosed with anxiety the <day of> murdering wife and child sues hospital for $10 Million"

Yup, because we all know his doctors DIRECTLY CAUSED the murderer to kill his family.

I put "day of" in brackets because it was either the day of or day after or day before or something. I dont know about you, but most people with anxiety don't go murdering their families.

I guess there is no such thing as personal responsibility. Maybe everyone who gets rejected from Harvard Med should go sue their Ob/Gyn for malpractice 🙄 🙄 🙄

The sad thing is, I bet there are tons of lawyer scum out there ready to take up such a case.

Hmmm... are you sure you went to the gym or was it the bar? 😉 I ordinarily give your posts an automatic certain level of respect, but this is such a complete non sequitur with regard to the subject at hand that I have to wonder about your current blood alcohol level.

 

[Gleevec]

Hmmm... are you sure you went to the gym or was it the bar? 😉 I ordinarily give your posts an automatic certain level of respect, but this is such a complete non sequitur with regard to the subject at hand that I have to wonder about your current blood alcohol level.

It was the gym =)

I tried finding the link on cnn.com but didnt have any luck. Ill keep looking though, I know its hard to believe if you dont have proof (and I actually had to do a double take myself). Hopefully some other SDNer saw this and might know whats up.

Also, my post wasnt directly related to the main subject, its just another example of one of what I believe to be a completely frivolous lawsuit.

 

[kinetic]

...without whom all this would not be possible! Honorable mention to the "reasonable" juries who OK'd the awards!

In 1994, a New Mexico jury awarded $2.9 million U.S. in damages to 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who suffered third-degree burns to her legs, groin and buttocks after spilling a cup of McDonald's coffee on herself.

This case inspired an annual award - The "Stella" Award - for the most frivolous lawsuit in the U.S. The ones listed below are clear candidates. All these cases are verging on the outright ridiculous and yet with the right attorney you could win anything!

1. January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin Texas was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running amok inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving tyke was Ms. Robertson's son.

2. June 1998: A 19 year old, Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbour ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car, when he was trying to steal his neighbours hubcap.

3. October 1998: A Terrence Dickson of Bristol Pennsylvania was exiting a house he finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up, because the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation. Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. Mr. Dickson sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars.

4. October 1999: Jerry Williams of Little Rock Arkansas was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbour's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in it's owner's fenced-in yard, as was Mr. Williams. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog may have been provoked by Mr. Williams who, at the time, was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.

5. May 2000: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500 after she slipped on soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

6. December 1997: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighbouring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms.Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.

7. Jan 2002. A man was stopped by police in Vermont. After running his name, it came back that there were warrants for his arrest from Florida. Before the police could arrest him, he fled into a nearby forest (in the middle of winter). The police searched for him, but were unable to find him. Three days later, the suspect turns himself in to police and was taken to the hospital with frostbite. He ended up having several fingers and toes amputated. He is now suing the police. Why? The police didn't look for him hard enough! He stated in an interview, "If they had searched harder, they would've found me." He's accusing the police of dereliction of duty leading to his loss of limbs.

 

[SoulRFlare]

here's a nice rambling post to chew on:

One point that keeps coming up in my mind is the phrase "a jury of peers." It seems to me, particularly in the more complex medical cases, that a physician is entitled to a well informed and knowledgeable jury--ie made up of other physicians. Before anyone brings up arbitration, keep in mind that I am considering a system identical to the present, with the exception of the jury. (maybe that is what arbitration boils down to, i don't know...)

Now this introduces its own set of problems: the possibility of sympathy/professional courtesy/deference, as well as the fact that defendant is likely to know at least some of the physicians on the jury. But I would argue that this could be the case with any jury. Perhaps the biggest stumbling block to this system, however would be public perception. Regardless of the merits of a given case, if found in favor of the defendant, some ppl would immediately suspect cronyism.

I'm a bit baffled as to why the pain and suffering cap is preventing lawyers from being compensated. For example, if a person wins a 2.5 million dollar lawsuit, which includes the $250,000 pain and suffering award, whats to stop the attorney from taking his or her cut from the economic damages portion? (legal fees, after all, to seem to be an economic "loss" stemming directly from the injury.)

Aside from the potential economic gain, it seems that the prodigious number of lawsuits stem from public perception/envy/fear of the medical profession. Ppl don't like to feel helpless, and being fed into the medical system can be one of the most disempowering experiences one can face. In such a situation, rational or not, we might fantasize that the healthcare providers are omnipotent in order to allay the fear/helplessness. When something goes wrong then, the patient, in leveling a suit could be saying "how dare you have the power to render me helpless, and then allow me to lose X, Y, or Z!"

I think too, a doctor's attitude toward their patients goes a long way in determining whether they are more or less likely to be sued. Lets say that two doctors perform the same procedure, on identical patients, and make the same mistakes under indentical conditions. Furthermore, the mistake is unavoidable--no negligence involved. One doctor routinely exudes arrogance and condescension, while the other routinely involves patients in their own treatment, relates well to the patients, and shows the patients that he/she genuinely cares. I'd bet that the first doctor would be sued 9 times out of 10, and is much more likely to lose the suit. The second may still be sued, but I think that honest folks would be much less likely to sue the second over the first (as we all know, good caring doctors are still sued by unscrupulous ppl looking for a quick buck). Furthermore, the jury may be more hesitant to level stiff penalties against a physician whom they like (assuming the physician is a sympathetic witness).

 

[i61164]

Did you see that episode of Seinfeld where Elaine get blackballed by the doctors? She does something to piss one of them off and he writes a note in her chart. From then on, every doctor that sees the note refuses to treat her.

This is the answer!

Here's how the plan will work on a global scale. I will start a website called www.blackballed.com. On the site I will maintain a list of lawyers that bring "frivolous" malpractice suits. If it's a legitimate suit, they will not be blackballed. Doctors will pay me a small fee to access my site where they can check to make sure that their patients are not blackballed.

I think that this will be a great deterrent to frivolous malpractice suits and as a side benefit, I will get rich.

Everybody wins (except the scumbags that deserve to be blackballed)!!!

 

[i61164]

Did you see that episode of Seinfeld where Elaine get blackballed by the doctors? She does something to piss one of them off and he writes a note in her chart. From then on, every doctor that sees the note refuses to treat her.

This is the answer!

Here's how the plan will work on a global scale. I will start a website called www.blackballed.com. On the site I will maintain a list of lawyers that bring "frivolous" malpractice suits. If it's a legitimate suit, they will not be blackballed. Doctors will pay me a small fee to access my site where they can check to make sure that their patients are not blackballed.

I think that this will be a great deterrent to frivolous malpractice suits and as a side benefit, I will get rich.

Everybody wins (except the scumbags that deserve to be blackballed)!!!

Oops. I guess that URL is already taken. Anybody have a better name?

 

[IcedCube]

no doctor is refusing to treat trial lawyers and their families. the proposal was brought up in jest and was only meant to shine light on the issue of ridiculous malpractice insurance feez

 

[juddson]

LOL, what's the name of that rule where as soon as someone mentions World War II, The Holocaust, Hitler, Nazis, etc, they automatically forfeit an argument on an internet thread?

read my response to Kinetic. I'm not comparing lawyers to jews. I'm saying that stupid long held opinions about anybody are often not based in fact. It matters not who holds them or for how long. They are stupid.

Judd

 

[juddson]

...without whom all this would not be possible! Honorable mention to the "reasonable" juries who OK'd the awards!

In 1994, a New Mexico jury awarded $2.9 million U.S. in damages to 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who suffered third-degree burns to her legs, groin and buttocks after spilling a cup of McDonald's coffee on herself.

This case inspired an annual award - The "Stella" Award - for the most frivolous lawsuit in the U.S. The ones listed below are clear candidates. All these cases are verging on the outright ridiculous and yet with the right attorney you could win anything!

1. January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin Texas was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running amok inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving tyke was Ms. Robertson's son.

2. June 1998: A 19 year old, Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbour ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car, when he was trying to steal his neighbours hubcap.

3. October 1998: A Terrence Dickson of Bristol Pennsylvania was exiting a house he finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up, because the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation. Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. Mr. Dickson sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars.

4. October 1999: Jerry Williams of Little Rock Arkansas was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbour's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in it's owner's fenced-in yard, as was Mr. Williams. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog may have been provoked by Mr. Williams who, at the time, was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.

5. May 2000: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500 after she slipped on soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

6. December 1997: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighbouring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms.Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.

7. Jan 2002. A man was stopped by police in Vermont. After running his name, it came back that there were warrants for his arrest from Florida. Before the police could arrest him, he fled into a nearby forest (in the middle of winter). The police searched for him, but were unable to find him. Three days later, the suspect turns himself in to police and was taken to the hospital with frostbite. He ended up having several fingers and toes amputated. He is now suing the police. Why? The police didn't look for him hard enough! He stated in an interview, "If they had searched harder, they would've found me." He's accusing the police of dereliction of duty leading to his loss of limbs.

Except for the McDonalds one (which you can read about on ATLA), the rest are urban legends propogated by. . .well . . . by people just like you, Kinetic.

Judd

 

[juddson]

I'm a bit baffled as to why the pain and suffering cap is preventing lawyers from being compensated. For example, if a person wins a 2.5 million dollar lawsuit, which includes the $250,000 pain and suffering award, whats to stop the attorney from taking his or her cut from the economic damages portion? (legal fees, after all, to seem to be an economic "loss" stemming directly from the injury.)

).

The lawyer CAN take his 1/3 from the whole award. The problem is that the economic portion may be small or nothing (for instance, th death of a minor has very few economic compensatory damages because he or she did not work). This leaves only non-economic damages (which can be very real and visceral, of course). The case in TX is one such case. Moreover, an elderly patient, who is at the end of his or her working life may also have virtually nothing in the way of "economic" damages. But a life cut short by 30 year can certainly generate non-economic damages. When they are capped at $250,000, not only is the patient not adaquately compensated (if the injury is great enough) but the economic realities of the situation are that no lawyer could even afford to bring the case on her behalf.

Judd

 

[juddson]

Did you see that episode of Seinfeld where Elaine get blackballed by the doctors? She does something to piss one of them off and he writes a note in her chart. From then on, every doctor that sees the note refuses to treat her.

This is the answer!

Here's how the plan will work on a global scale. I will start a website called www.blackballed.com. On the site I will maintain a list of lawyers that bring "frivolous" malpractice suits. If it's a legitimate suit, they will not be blackballed. Doctors will pay me a small fee to access my site where they can check to make sure that their patients are not blackballed.

I think that this will be a great deterrent to frivolous malpractice suits and as a side benefit, I will get rich.

Everybody wins (except the scumbags that deserve to be blackballed)!!!

let's go with this.

Who determines whether a suit was frivolous?

How is that determination made? Is a jury winner a good suit? Are all jury losers frivolous suits?

Suppose a case is settled (the vast majority are) - are these good suits or frivolous ones?

Assuming you can nail down what that means, suppose a lawyer filed four mertorious suits last year and two "frivolous" ones. Is he blacklisted?

Judd

 

[i61164]

Being blackballed will be a very serious punishment, so we must take great care to make sure that only the truly deserving receive it. Something along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty" would be appropriate. Maybe we can reach a general consensus of what should be considered "abuse" of the legal system. Many details to work out...

 

[exgatr]

The whole controversy about malpractice caps vs. low lawyer compensation can be resolved easily.

Malpractice lawyers should charge an hourly rate, just like all other lawyers. Families with clear-cut malpractice cases can then pay them from their winnings, and families trying to sue frivilously won't pony up the dough.

 

[i61164]

The whole controversy about malpractice caps vs. low lawyer compensation can be resolved easily.

Malpractice lawyers should charge an hourly rate, just like all other lawyers. Families with clear-cut malpractice cases can then pay them from their winnings, and families trying to sue frivilously won't pony up the dough.

But who will pay the 100K+ for the expert witnesses and other legal expenses? If the lawyers pay, their hourly rate will have to be pretty high. If the plaintiff pays, he may not be able to afford it, even if he has a legitimate case (I assume that these expenses need to be paid before the plantiff receives any winnings).

 

[japhy]

doctors are in fact refusing to treat lawyers, their families, even state legislators families. totally absurd!

below are excerps from this link.
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Jun/06162004/business/175767.asp

Doctors blame lawyers as costs soar

By Don Babwin
The Associated Press

"If somebody takes a position that is very deleterious to your welfare, you have a right not to do business with him," said Clinton "Rick" Miller, a neurosurgeon in Portsmouth, N.H. Miller did just that, telling Tim Coughlin, president of the state's trial lawyers association, that he would not treat him for elective surgery because he lobbied against limits on malpractice lawsuits.

While Miller said he would have no problem treating Coughlin's family, Hawk would. He dropped a patient when he found out her husband was a prominent local trial attorney.
"I don't think it violates the Hippocratic oath," he said.
Nor, apparently did Michael Kanosky, a plastic surgeon in Mississippi. Just last week it was reported that Kanosky refused to treat the daughter of a state lawmaker who opposed limits in damage lawsuits against physicians in the state.
"He asked me who I worked for and then asked me who my father was," Kimberly Banks told The Associated Press. "I told him [State Rep.] Earle Banks. He told me, 'I can't see you because your father is against tort reform.' "

 

[flighterdoc]

But who will pay the 100K+ for the expert witnesses and other legal expenses? If the lawyers pay, their hourly rate will have to be pretty high. If the plaintiff pays, he may not be able to afford it, even if he has a legitimate case (I assume that these expenses need to be paid before the plantiff receives any winnings).

And why should the defendent have to pay for successfully defending a suit? A doctor looses, even when they win - loss of income in the time spent in the suit, damage to their reputation, increased insurance premiums, pain and suffering for the stress of the trial, etc. It makes no matter the justification for the suit, the costs are still there.

The only ones who ALWAYS make out (no matter which position they take) are the lawyers.

 

[flighterdoc]

let's go with this.

Who determines whether a suit was frivolous?

How is that determination made? Is a jury winner a good suit? Are all jury losers frivolous suits?

Suppose a case is settled (the vast majority are) - are these good suits or frivolous ones?

Assuming you can nail down what that means, suppose a lawyer filed four mertorious suits last year and two "frivolous" ones. Is he blacklisted?

Judd

How is the determination made now? A lawyer has the $15 or whatever to file the papers at the court, and a judge (who lacks any knowledge pertinent to the case) decides it has merit?

How about mandatory, binding arbitration, with the arbitrators actually qualified to judge - you know, physicians in the pertinent specialties? Of course, that would mean that lawyers wouldn't be able to get the 1/3 plus expenses.

Or, if the lawyer looses, he's on the hook for not only his time, but his expenses as well? The frivolous suits won't go anywhere, the realistic ones will.

BTW, the "expertness" of the expert witnesses needs to be addressed, as well. Professional witnesses (ie people with MD titles who's practice consists soley of testifying at $1k+ per day, plus expenses) shouldn't be allowed to testify as to the competence of a physician, or the appropriateness of the treatment provided. Lawyers can find a physician that will testify to almost anything, the back pages of the American Lawyer (the ABA magazine) had dozens of ads last time I looked at one.

I even used to be an expert witness in certain types of aircraft crash lawsuits. I only charged $400/day (it was a long time ago), but my qualifications included having a degree in astro engineering from a pretty good school, 3000+ hours flying military aircraft, more than 1000 hours in the particular make and model of aircraft involved in the suits, a flight instructor who taught the factory qualification course for the particular aircraft, and working as a production test pilot for the manufacturer. BTW, I was NEVER asked to be a witness for the plaintiff, always the defense (the manufacturers).

Judges need to be far more critical in accepting the bona fides of anyone offered (by either side) as an expert, including their expertise in the field (not in testifying about the field), their associations with groups that might have a particular agenda (for example the Lancet child vaccination/Autism articlek, written by a "qualified" expert with an ax to grind), and the judges should have some degree of knowledge in basic science - oh, but if they knew anything about science, they'd be doctors: Never mind.

 

[hakksar]

I think punishment is only appropriate for excessive culpability, such as malice or recklessness or perhaps gross negligence. Most malpractice is simple negligence - an unintentional deviation (for whatever reason) from what the standard of care. Ie, an honest mistake.

"honest mistakes" get up the feathers of many people here because, after all, everybody makes honest mistakes. But I submit that "compensation" is still due. For instance, failing to stop at a red light (assuming no dui, reckless driving, etc.) because you "didn't see it" is an "honest mistake". But here few would argue that the offending party should not have to compensate the injured driver for this "honest mistake". right?

I agree the offending person should compensate for economic damages for honest mistakes. However, compensating non-economic damages for honest mistakes is unfair. Money does not do anything to eliminate or even mitigate intangible losses and therefore it only functions as a means to get rich quick out of tragedy and to further punish the offending party (who already will be feeling extreme guilt if it just was an honest mistake that caused bodily injury or death). I think it is not only not ethically justified to compensate intangible losses with money but even ethically wrong to compensate these losses with money because we do not want people to profit from tragedy.

 

[juddson]

The only ones who ALWAYS make out (no matter which position they take) are the lawyers.

huh??!!

The lawyer loses his investment in the case if he loses the case. How is it that he "ALWAYS" wins no matter what position he takes. Step back a minute and look at what you are saying.

judd

 

[flighterdoc]

huh??!!

The lawyer loses his investment in the case if he loses the case. How is it that he "ALWAYS" wins no matter what position he takes. Step back a minute and look at what you are saying.

judd

So, a lawyer looses a few hours of billables on a BS case. They also have the potential to make millions for the same few hours. And more than a few "contingency" agreements (at least in California) are expenses plus contingency - there are cases where after winning a suit, the plaintiffs not only don't get ANY money, they owe their lawyers more.

The physician on the other hand looses not only his income opportunity, he has the other economic and non-economic losses I addressed.

 

[samurai_lincoln]

Flighterdoc, I have a beef or two with the issues you bring up regarding expert witnesses.

BTW, the "expertness" of the expert witnesses needs to be addressed, as well. Professional witnesses (ie people with MD titles who's practice consists soley of testifying at $1k+ per day, plus expenses) shouldn't be allowed to testify as to the competence of a physician, or the appropriateness of the treatment provided. Lawyers can find a physician that will testify to almost anything, the back pages of the American Lawyer (the ABA magazine) had dozens of ads last time I looked at one.

The "expertness" of such witnesses has indeed been addressed, in a series of controversial U.S. Supreme Court cases. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., General Electric v. Joiner, and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael and their progeny. Essentially, the test as to whether an expert's theories are admissible boils down to the following five part test:

1. Can the theory or technique be tested or has it been tested?
2. Has the theory or technique been subject to peer review and publication?
3. Is there a known or potential rate of error?
4. Is the technique maintained by standards and controls?
5. Has the theory been generally accepted?

The cases have substantially raised the bar for difficulty of admitting expert testimony, to the consternation of many plaintiffs' attorneys. I would think that someone who has previously worked as an expert would be aware of this situation. Speaking of which...

I even used to be an expert witness in certain types of aircraft crash lawsuits. I only charged $400/day (it was a long time ago), but my qualifications included having a degree in astro engineering from a pretty good school, 3000+ hours flying military aircraft, more than 1000 hours in the particular make and model of aircraft involved in the suits, a flight instructor who taught the factory qualification course for the particular aircraft, and working as a production test pilot for the manufacturer. BTW, I was NEVER asked to be a witness for the plaintiff, always the defense (the manufacturers).

Judges need to be far more critical in accepting the bona fides of anyone offered (by either side) as an expert, including their expertise in the field (not in testifying about the field), their associations with groups that might have a particular agenda (for example the Lancet child vaccination/Autism articlek, written by a "qualified" expert with an ax to grind), and the judges should have some degree of knowledge in basic science - oh, but if they knew anything about science, they'd be doctors: Never mind.

OK, now we can see where some of your anti-plaintiff rhetoric is coming from. Of course anyone with a dog in the hunt (or at least formerly in the hunt) is going to have some bias in addressing these issues. As for your point that plaintiffs never hired you as an expert... well, duh, you were working as a production test pilot for a manufacturer. Unless you were completely willing to become a pariah to your employer (not likely), no plaintiff would even think of approaching you to serve as an expert.