How often do doctors get sued

[dutchman]

A doctor I met told me that malpractice lawsuits are like divorce-- it used to be a shamefull thing back in the day, but these days everyone gets one or two of those. Is this true?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LADoc00]

A doctor I met told me that malpractice lawsuits are like divorce-- it used to be a shamefull thing back in the day, but these days everyone gets one or two of those. Is this true?

Malpractice is only a fraction of lawsuits you will encounter in medicine.
Lawsuits and legal action will include:
Partnership agreements
Hospital contract negotiations
Insurance company contracts
Medicare fraud investigations
Competitor lawsuits

It is insane, there are many days my ENTIRE gross income goes all to big law firms.....

 

[tncekm]

Oh the joys of medicine 😍

 

[docB]

The average figure for ER docs getting sued now is ~1:20000 patient visits. For full time docs that = 1 suit every 6-7 years.

 

[dutchman]

usually is a malpractice lawsuit a career ender?

 

[secretwave101]

Docs are NAMED in suits much more frequently than they lose them. I'd say it's 1:1. In other words, really stupid claims go to trial regularly and often include every doc that touched some plaintiff's chart. So 8 docs + all their lawyers are lined up behind the defendent's desk. But they often win. So, they all "got sued", but in fact just had to defend themselves in a "lawsuit".

But even winning a suit is pretty anticlimatic. It's very expensive, even if you win, due to lost productivity and cost of your defense team. In fact, I think most malpractice insurance is two-tiered, so it covers your defense, and the settlement if you lose.

It's all pretty crappy. And yeah, ER and OB are the worst, from what I can tell. There's so many poor outcomes in ER that the docs get sued for patients they barely saw before they were transferred to the floor, etc. I worked with an ER doc who was 33 and had already been through 2 litigation trials ("won" both).

 

[docB]

usually is a malpractice lawsuit a career ender?

No. Getting sued is pretty standard. Losing a suit or settling is also pretty standard. If your case paid out more than a mil or involved some really bad conduct then maybe but lawsuits are just the cost of doing business in medicine.

 

[docB]

Docs are NAMED in suits much more frequently than they lose them. I'd say it's 1:1. In other words, really stupid claims go to trial regularly and often include every doc that touched some plaintiff's chart. So 8 docs + all their lawyers are lined up behind the defendent's desk. But they often win. So, they all "got sued", but in fact just had to defend themselves in a "lawsuit".

But even winning a suit is pretty anticlimatic. It's very expensive, even if you win, due to lost productivity and cost of your defense team. In fact, I think most malpractice insurance is two-tiered, so it covers your defense, and the settlement if you lose.

It's all pretty crappy. And yeah, ER and OB are the worst, from what I can tell. There's so many poor outcomes in ER that the docs get sued for patients they barely saw before they were transferred to the floor, etc. I worked with an ER doc who was 33 and had already been through 2 litigation trials ("won" both).

We don't figure the "name dropper" suits in with the 1 suit per 20000 visits figure.

 

[EctopicFetus]

We don't figure the "name dropper" suits in with the 1 suit per 20000 visits figure.

Yeah sometimes you are named in a suit if something goes wrong later. This is a lawsuit which is a pain in your ass but you have no risk of getting busted.

For example an attending I worked with told me a story that when he was a resident he saw a lady for an ankle sprain. A few yrs later she is dx'ed with Breast CA. He is named.. of course his name is shortly taken off.

Lawyers name all then see how things shake out.

 

[Bevo]

they also name any doc with deep pockets who might have been involved

 

[docB]

they also name any doc with deep pockets who might have been involved

I don't know that lawyers are looking at that in the initial phases. The deep pockets issue is tricky for them because determining a doc's pocket depth takes a lot of extra research which represents additional cash up front for them. Remember, for the lawyers this is all about making money. It's also relatively unusual for awards to top the malpractice limits ($1 mil per case in most situations) and if they do the docs just declare bankruptcy. If they add extra docs they can get more money if they can keep those names on the case. This is also why they love suing docs but they really love suing hospitals. Hospitals have higher limits. If they can get the hospital they can make a lot of cash.

 

[beetlerum]

Remember, for the lawyers this is all about making money.

Oh, of course. I mean, they're not human beings or anything, and obviously they care about nothing except money. I assume you know a huge number of malpractice lawyers personally since you're willing to make sweeping generalizations about them.

Believe it or not, being a medmal plaintiffs attorney can be very personally rewarding. Many of the plaintiffs do not have much money or the skills to continue working while injured. The award can be a godsend to them. I'm not defending our current system as being the right one. I favor significant changes. But who are you to judge the motivations of another profession?

Also, most doctors are pretty well insured, so whether they have deep pockets or not probably won't matter.

 

[Bevo]

just think of the impact they've caused on how medicine is practiced.

They're causing:
a) rising costs in malpractice insurance
b) they alter what and how many tests are ordered for each patient
c) they cause some folks to stay in a hospital or er longer than they should to protect the doctor and hospital from lawsuit.
d) they have impacted what terms must be spoken and recorded. i.e. Fetal Distress is no longer an acceptable term.

I'm sure you can add 100 other things to this list. Just look at what John Edwards did to the state of North Carolina(I think).

I'm sure that not 100% of lawyers are all about the money. But a lot are ambulance chasers in this business.

 

[beetlerum]

just think of the impact they've caused on how medicine is practiced.

They're causing:
a) rising costs in malpractice insurance
b) they alter what and how many tests are ordered for each patient
c) they cause some folks to stay in a hospital or er longer than they should to protect the doctor and hospital from lawsuit.
d) they have impacted what terms must be spoken and recorded. i.e. Fetal Distress is no longer an acceptable term.

I'm sure you can add 100 other things to this list. Just look at what John Edwards did to the state of North Carolina(I think).

I'm sure that not 100% of lawyers are all about the money. But a lot are ambulance chasers in this business.

Well, the impact is not so clear cut. The actual cost of malpractice is such a small part of health care costs (some faction of 1%, I think) that it is unlikely to have a major impact. The idea of defensive medicine has produced complicated empirical results.

But regardless, this is all besides the point for two reasons. First, you still help people on an an individual level, and that can be very rewarding. Second, not all malpractice attorneys bring suits irresponsibly, and clearly there's some need for malpractice tort action in the absence of an alternative system. There's pretty convincing evidence that this is good for society.

So, no, the "ambulance chasers" as you like to call them, are not inhuman monsters who care only about money. Nor are they worse human beings than doctors.

By the way, what is your experience with law? I assume you, like docB, must have some pretty substantial experience with the legal profession to make these judgments.

 

[Surgeon24]

It's always all about the money.
Lawyers, doctors, nurses, teachers, strippers.

We all want the money.




P.S. Don't deny it.

 

[Bevo]

Have you ever rotated on the floors? Followed a doctor? Doesn't sound like you have.

I'm not saying all suits are irresponsible. But many will nit pick orders or terms used to prove guilt of the doctor. I can't remember the example I had heard about. But every doctor would have understood what the physician had meant, but in law they stuck it to him that he was 100% sure of the diagnosis or something like that.

I'm not labeling them all like that. I've never called them inhuman (maybe Mr Edwards is) monsters. You're putting words in my mouth. But money does fuel their intentions. Do say money does not is illogical. I'd say maybe that 5% of all lawyers could care less about the monetary gains. Physicians go into it for money as well. Its about lifestyle and opportunities.

Yeah sometimes suits are brought because people wanna hear a "I'm sorry" or "I was wrong". But I've also met people outside of the medical environment who believe that if a doctor made any mistake that it was their money, their right to be rich. I once spoke with a woman on a delayed flight who said that she worked just as hard as any doctor (a flight stewardess) and deserved to be paid the same.

What I would like to see are 2 things.
a) tort reform to limit the personal damages (I think thats what they did in Texas a few years ago)

b) change the system so that if the suing party loses, they have to cover the costs of the party they are suing. Hoping that this will reduce the amount frivolous law suits being brought so that only those with real grievances do go to forward.
As of right now a lawsuit will cost a doctor at least $3-5,000 in legal fees plus whatever effect it has on their malpractice insurance.

c) create a database of patients who have a history of suing multiple doctors. I know some folks did that in Dallas, TX based on public records open to the public. Some of those patients sued the doctors who started the website. Don't know what ever happened to it.
Not saying everyone who does should be listed. Doctors can't dump a patient, but a doctor doesn't have to accept every patient he or she gets. Doctors should know more about the patient's legal practices when it comes to malpractice or civil lawsuits. I understand that Mr John Edwards and his wife have a hard time receiving medical care now in the state of North Carolina and have made it very hard for ob/gyn doctors to afford practicing in the state.

I'm no fan of lawyers and I won't hide that fact. But I'm not gonna ever argue that should lose the right to ever challenge or a sue physician. I'm just saying that the current climate makes practicing medicine a treacherous affair. The playing field has to be leveled.

Physicians can do a lot more to help themselves by being open and forth coming with patients.

 

[dutchman]

b) change the system so that if the suing party loses, they have to cover the costs of the party they are suing. Hoping that this will reduce the amount frivolous law suits being brought so that only those with real grievances do go to forward.
As of right now a lawsuit will cost a doctor at least $3-5,000 in legal fees plus whatever effect it has on their malpractice insurance.
.

That alone will fix the whole problem

 

[EctopicFetus]

Oh, of course. I mean, they're not human beings or anything, and obviously they care about nothing except money. I assume you know a huge number of malpractice lawyers personally since you're willing to make sweeping generalizations about them.

Believe it or not, being a medmal plaintiffs attorney can be very personally rewarding. Many of the plaintiffs do not have much money or the skills to continue working while injured. The award can be a godsend to them. I'm not defending our current system as being the right one. I favor significant changes. But who are you to judge the motivations of another profession?

Also, most doctors are pretty well insured, so whether they have deep pockets or not probably won't matter.

🙄 I hope you are kidding or high.. insane.. Do people really believe this to be true?

 

[beetlerum]

Have you ever rotated on the floors? Followed a doctor? Doesn't sound like you have.

Well yes, but what are you trying to imply? Which one of my assertions would somone who has been on the wards clearly never say? The one about medmal suits being a small % of costs? The one about empirical evidence on defensive medicine being mixed? What a weird comment.

But money does fuel their intentions. Do say money does not is illogical. I'd say maybe that 5% of all lawyers could care less about the monetary gains. Physicians go into it for money as well. Its about lifestyle and opportunities.

Oh, gimme a break. The comment that started this was about these lawyers only doing it for the money. Yeah, of course everyone cares a lot about money and lifestyle, but the claim was essentially that these lawyers care about nothing except money. If I made a similar claim about doctors, half the people on this thread would go crazy and give me the "Oh, how I've sacrificed" lecture.

I once spoke with a woman on a delayed flight who said that she worked just as hard as any doctor (a flight stewardess) and deserved to be paid the same.

Huh? How does this illustrate entitlement? Because she thought her salary should be based on how hard she works rather than market forces? That's a valid point, definitely, but then again, like 95% of doctors feel that salaries should be based on years of training and how hard you work rather than market forces. Ironically, the same entitlement claim would apply so well to doctors as a group.

Or are you saying it was just outrageous that she didn't say something like "Of course, doctors work vastly harder than I do."

What I would like to see are 2 things.
a) tort reform to limit the personal damages (I think thats what they did in Texas a few years ago)

There are so many ways to fix the system that are better than that--except from the narrow perspective of doctors' interests. What a self-serving policy reform. I favor significant reform too, but not reform to basically make it harder to sue.

But again, this is all besides the point of the original issue about doctors making sweeping dismissals of lawyers without knowing much about the law or lawyers.

b) change the system so that if the suing party loses, they have to cover the costs of the party they are suing. Hoping that this will reduce the amount frivolous law suits being brought so that only those with real grievances do go to forward.
As of right now a lawsuit will cost a doctor at least $3-5,000 in legal fees plus whatever effect it has on their malpractice insurance.

Again, it's nice that you have made such an effort to adopt a neutral perspective, rather than the narrow perspective of physicians' self-interest. Loser pays is a complicated issue. I'm not sure where I'd come out. However, the effect (as with caps on recovery) is basically to make it harder for lower-income people to access legal services.

Note that with these suits, lawyers only recover if the suits end with a settlement or jury award. And they can be very expensive. So there is already a check built into the system. And despite what you might think, frivolous suits generally get thrown out.

c) create a database of patients who have a history of suing multiple doctors. I know some folks did that in Dallas, TX based on public records open to the public. Some of those patients sued the doctors who started the website. Don't know what ever happened to it.

So basically create a blacklist of patients? Repulsive.

Look, there's absolutely nothing wrong with doctors making self-serving suggestions for reform. Doctors, like any other group, are perfectly entitled to advance their interests. However, they shouldn't make self-serving suggestions for tort "reform" and at the same time make judgmental, sweeping comments about the plaintiffs bar for being concerned with their own financial interests.

 

[EctopicFetus]

3-5K in legal fees? Try way way more... Unless you are getting some newbie attorney dying for a job..

BTW my wife practiced law and is now faculty at a law school. Oh she teaches torts and specializes in health law...

MOST (99.76%) Plaintiffs attorneys are ruthless inhuman spawn of satan (or other evil diety you may believe in).

If they cared there are other ways.. and oh why do they get 1/3 PLUS expenses? EVEN in clear cut cases of negligence?

 

[Faebinder]

c) create a database of patients who have a history of suing multiple doctors. I know some folks did that in Dallas, TX based on public records open to the public. Some of those patients sued the doctors who started the website. Don't know what ever happened to it.
Not saying everyone who does should be listed. Doctors can't dump a patient, but a doctor doesn't have to accept every patient he or she gets. Doctors should know more about the patient's legal practices when it comes to malpractice or civil lawsuits. I understand that Mr John Edwards and his wife have a hard time receiving medical care now in the state of North Carolina and have made it very hard for ob/gyn doctors to afford practicing in the state.

I'm no fan of lawyers and I won't hide that fact. But I'm not gonna ever argue that should lose the right to ever challenge or a sue physician. I'm just saying that the current climate makes practicing medicine a treacherous affair. The playing field has to be leveled.

Physicians can do a lot more to help themselves by being open and forth coming with patients.

Man... If John Edwards was dying infront of me and only I could save him right then and there... I'd need a minute or 2 to think about it... Literally..

That how disgusting the man is to me....

I can still recall the wonderful stories told to me by one OBGYN chairman..

 

[Faebinder]

So basically create a blacklist of patients? Repulsive.

Look, there's absolutely nothing wrong with doctors making self-serving suggestions for reform. Doctors, like any other group, are perfectly entitled to advance their interests. However, they shouldn't make self-serving suggestions for tort "reform" and at the same time make judgmental, sweeping comments about the plaintiffs bar for being concerned with their own financial interests.

👎 I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt till you made the above statement...

Blacklist is repulsive?!?! So someone who has sued multiple doctors multiple times is okay to continue to sue? Yeah.. it's not HIS FAULT OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD....there is obviously nothing wrong with him.......sheesh. be real.

The tort that happened in Texas is perfect. If you think that lawsuits are minor costs of medical healthcare expenses you are naive and ignore the fact that that we do EVERYTHING now defensively... from the little form a nurse fills to the head CT done to cover someone's butt.

It's not just the medical insurance of the docs... it's the nurses, the PAs, the medical assistants, the hospital adminstrators covered by the hospital, the NPs, the clinical psychologists, the podiatrists.. the optometrists....etc etc etc etc. Everyone is named in lawsuits and someone is covering those people and it aint free. Even if a doc is not included in the lawsuit, the institute being sued causes a lot of changes in the expenses. The hospital must compensate the loss somehow and make sure the lawyer cant use the lawsuit again by utilizing the same topic/subject of the lawsuit...

 

[beetlerum]

3-5K in legal fees? Try way way more... Unless you are getting some newbie attorney dying for a job..

BTW my wife practiced law and is now faculty at a law school. Oh she teaches torts and specializes in health law...

MOST (99.76%) Plaintiffs attorneys are ruthless inhuman spawn of satan (or other evil diety you may believe in).

If they cared there are other ways.. and oh why do they get 1/3 PLUS expenses? EVEN in clear cut cases of negligence?

I wrote a long angry post, and although it expressed my sincere opinion, I am deleting it. Let me just say that your comments are unacceptable, personally offensive to me as the friend of plaintiffs attorneys, and motivated by ignorance.

And I feel sorry for your wife's students if she has tremendous contempt for them and their future careers.

 

[docB]

I don't have any respect for plaintiff's lawyers. They make my life a living hell every day. Every single day of my professional life I have the threat of a suit hanging over me even if I perform perfectly which no one does. I frequently have abusive patients who threaten to sue if they are not given their narcotic of choice or if they are dissatisfied in any way. They have created this abomination of a "system" that is inequitable to their own clients to gain financially to the tune of 30% of every dollar they are so noble to get for them.

Where do you get the figure of med mal costing lest than 1% of health care dollars. I personally pay about 10% just for the insurance and that doesn't include actual suit related costs and doesn't even address defensive medicine.

Medicine certainly has its problems but law is in serious danger of losing its soul. Your own institutions are scrambling to address the low esteem in which law is held by the public.

I personally know several lawyers and have consulted on some cases (not involving med mal). Some are my friends and some feel they are doing some good. I don't respect their profession. In my experience lawyers do not think in terms of right and wrong. They think in terms of what can be argued or not. There is a price tag on every action and those cases where they are doing so much good for the little guy don't even get filed unless there is a possible big payoff at the end of the rainbow. And when the system screws up as it so often does every lawyer I know blames legislators. Well legislators are other lawyers. And a lawyer throwing up has hands and saying "That's just how it is." is crap. That isn't "just how it is." Lawyers made it that way. When I tell a patient that they're dying of cancer that's "just how it is." A bunch of docs didn't create cancer and screw it up so that I can tell the patient "write the AMA." or some such cop out. Cancer is what it is and if you want to talk to who ever made it that way you better be religious.

No other profession has to put up with the second guessing that we get. When lawyers screw up they rarely get penalized. A judge who gets reversed on appeal doesn't see his insurance go up.

So yes my statement was a generalization but I stand by it and reiterate that I have no respect for law as a profession or a system. Your comments have served only solidify that attitude. Arguing that I should have more respect for my persecutors is like trying to get a sheep to respect a wolf (or maybe a fish and a shark would be a better analogy).

 

[EctopicFetus]

I wrote a long angry post, and although it expressed my sincere opinion, I am deleting it. Let me just say that your comments are unacceptable, personally offensive to me as the friend of plaintiffs attorneys, and motivated by ignorance.

And I feel sorry for your wife's students if she has tremendous contempt for them and their future careers.

you should have posted it.. it would have given me a nice chuckle im sure. My wife and i might not see eye to eye on this issue but believe me scum is scum. now dont get me wrong some people deserve some money.. but why should some idiot who graduated in the bottom of his 4th tier law school class get 1/3?

Fact is top notch law students dont become plaintiffs attorneys. The smartest and best go on to work for firms or if they want to do work "for common people" they take on a crap load of pro bono work or volunteer their time. Not take on Mr Johnsons 25th lawsuit vs State hospital.

SCUM..

 

[EctopicFetus]

I wrote a long angry post, and although it expressed my sincere opinion, I am deleting it. Let me just say that your comments are unacceptable, personally offensive to me as the friend of plaintiffs attorneys, and motivated by ignorance.

And I feel sorry for your wife's students if she has tremendous contempt for them and their future careers.

fyi if it is personally offensive to you, you need to step away from the computer right now...BTW my comments are 100% acceptable.. you know why. there is some truth and i didnt go after any individual personally. If you dont like it leave..

Im sure John Edwards and his friends have a forum you can visit.

 

[EctopicFetus]

I don't have any respect for plaintiff's lawyers. They make my life a living hell every day. Every single day of my professional life I have the threat of a suit hanging over me even if I perform perfectly which no one does. I frequently have abusive patients who threaten to sue if they are not given their narcotic of choice or if they are dissatisfied in any way. They have created this abomination of a "system" that is inequitable to their own clients to gain financially to the tune of 30% of every dollar they are so noble to get for them.

Where do you get the figure of med mal costing lest than 1% of health care dollars. I personally pay about 10% just for the insurance and that doesn't include actual suit related costs and doesn't even address defensive medicine.

Medicine certainly has its problems but law is in serious danger of losing its soul. Your own institutions are scrambling to address the low esteem in which law is held by the public.

I personally know several lawyers and have consulted on some cases (not involving med mal). Some are my friends and some feel they are doing some good. I don't respect their profession. In my experience lawyers do not think in terms of right and wrong. They think in terms of what can be argued or not. There is a price tag on every action and those cases where they are doing so much good for the little guy don't even get filed unless there is a possible big payoff at the end of the rainbow. And when the system screws up as it so often does every lawyer I know blames legislators. Well legislators are other lawyers. And a lawyer throwing up has hands and saying "That's just how it is." is crap. That isn't "just how it is." Lawyers made it that way. When I tell a patient that they're dying of cancer that's "just how it is." A bunch of docs didn't create cancer and screw it up so that I can tell the patient "write the AMA." or some such cop out. Cancer is what it is and if you want to talk to who ever made it that way you better be religious.

No other profession has to put up with the second guessing that we get. When lawyers screw up they rarely get penalized. A judge who gets reversed on appeal doesn't see his insurance go up.

So yes my statement was a generalization but I stand by it and reiterate that I have no respect for law as a profession or a system. Your comments have served only solidify that attitude. Arguing that I should have more respect for my persecutors is like trying to get a sheep to respect a wolf (or maybe a fish and a shark would be a better analogy).

 

[Shah_Patel_PT]

just think of the impact they've caused on how medicine is practiced.

They're causing:
a) rising costs in malpractice insurance
b) they alter what and how many tests are ordered for each patient
c) they cause some folks to stay in a hospital or er longer than they should to protect the doctor and hospital from lawsuit.
d) they have impacted what terms must be spoken and recorded. i.e. Fetal Distress is no longer an acceptable term.

I'm sure you can add 100 other things to this list. Just look at what John Edwards did to the state of North Carolina(I think).

I'm sure that not 100% of lawyers are all about the money. But a lot are ambulance chasers in this business.

VERY TRUE!!!! WHAT IF HE RUNS FOR PREZ???? WILL HE DO THE SAME TO THE US HEALTH CARE SYSTEM????

 

[nomorelaw]

I can give a little info. on malpractice as a lawyer (not med. malpractice) and a victim of med malpractice. In my state, it is very difficult to sue a dr. You need another dr. to provide an affidavit detailing the malpractice and that there is a strong case for a claim to be filed. If this is not done, the case gets dismissed within 60 days forever. As for me, a dr. operated on my wrong eye and left me partially blind. Didn't sue him. Kind of ironic I guess. Malpractice isnt limited to drs., people are more likely to go after lawyers if we mess up.

 

[asif7083]

I don't have any respect for plaintiff's lawyers. They make my life a living hell every day. Every single day of my professional life I have the threat of a suit hanging over me even if I perform perfectly which no one does. I frequently have abusive patients who threaten to sue if they are not given their narcotic of choice or if they are dissatisfied in any way. They have created this abomination of a "system" that is inequitable to their own clients to gain financially to the tune of 30% of every dollar they are so noble to get for them.

Where do you get the figure of med mal costing lest than 1% of health care dollars. I personally pay about 10% just for the insurance and that doesn't include actual suit related costs and doesn't even address defensive medicine.

Medicine certainly has its problems but law is in serious danger of losing its soul. Your own institutions are scrambling to address the low esteem in which law is held by the public.

I personally know several lawyers and have consulted on some cases (not involving med mal). Some are my friends and some feel they are doing some good. I don't respect their profession. In my experience lawyers do not think in terms of right and wrong. They think in terms of what can be argued or not. There is a price tag on every action and those cases where they are doing so much good for the little guy don't even get filed unless there is a possible big payoff at the end of the rainbow. And when the system screws up as it so often does every lawyer I know blames legislators. Well legislators are other lawyers. And a lawyer throwing up has hands and saying "That's just how it is." is crap. That isn't "just how it is." Lawyers made it that way. When I tell a patient that they're dying of cancer that's "just how it is." A bunch of docs didn't create cancer and screw it up so that I can tell the patient "write the AMA." or some such cop out. Cancer is what it is and if you want to talk to who ever made it that way you better be religious.

No other profession has to put up with the second guessing that we get. When lawyers screw up they rarely get penalized. A judge who gets reversed on appeal doesn't see his insurance go up.

So yes my statement was a generalization but I stand by it and reiterate that I have no respect for law as a profession or a system. Your comments have served only solidify that attitude. Arguing that I should have more respect for my persecutors is like trying to get a sheep to respect a wolf (or maybe a fish and a shark would be a better analogy).

😀 But I dont think all lawyers are like that. Maybe just 95% of them.

 

[Shah_Patel_PT]

I can give a little info. on malpractice as a lawyer (not med. malpractice) and a victim of med malpractice. In my state, it is very difficult to sue a dr. You need another dr. to provide an affidavit detailing the malpractice and that there is a strong case for a claim to be filed. If this is not done, the case gets dismissed within 60 days forever. As for me, a dr. operated on my wrong eye and left me partially blind. Didn't sue him. Kind of ironic I guess. Malpractice isnt limited to drs., people are more likely to go after lawyers if we mess up.

I watch the news a lot....I don't remember the last time I heard a lawyer getting sued.

It must be really rare...but I dont have the stats to back that up.

 

[nomorelaw]

I watch the news a lot....I don't remember the last time I heard a lawyer getting sued.

It must be really rare...but I dont have the stats to back that up.

It actually happens quite often. My guess is that you never hear about it is because unlike med mal, it is hard to see the damage.

 

[YouDontKnowJack]

It is insane, there are many days my ENTIRE gross income goes all to big law firms.....

what the hell do you do that necessitates so much money being wasted?

 

[beetlerum]

BTW my comments are 100% acceptable.. you know why. there is some truth and i didnt go after any individual personally.

Oh right, it is just obviously 100% acceptable to call an entire profession you know little about the spawn of Satan And you do effectively go after individuals personally. You just attacked every smalltime attorney, since most do plaintiffs work.

And then you prove your ignorance with ridiculous comments about lawyers taking one third even in easy cases. Oh I see. If they really cared about anything other than money, they would voluntarily make less than the market will allow. I suppose you also think doctors care only about money if they don't return most of their fees for easy cases. But regardless, these lawyers cannot afford to return their fees. Most members of the plaintiffs bar make <100k.

By the way, do you believe we shouldn't have a non-criminal legal system? Or should we have legal agreements and duties, just not the ability to enforce them?

but why should some idiot who graduated in the bottom of his 4th tier law school class get 1/3?

Shouldn't what you get be determined by how good you are, not where you went to law school? Where did you go to med school? If you didn't go to a top ten school, should someone who went there make more even if you're a better doctor?

Edit: And by the way, one reason top law students don't go into plaintiffs work is because there's not much money in it, except for a very small group at the top. (And before you say "see, they're just motivated by money," perhaps we should discuss the popularity of various medical specialties. Everyone cares about money.)

 

[pediheart]

I'm in my 4th year of residency (med peds) and the hospital lawyers are STILL in negotiations over a lawsuit filed against me 3y ago.

I was innocent of any wrong-doing, of course.🙂

If the residency hospital didn't cover my legal fees, I'd have been sunk before I even started.
wes

 

[beetlerum]

I don't have any respect for plaintiff's lawyers. They make my life a living hell every day. Every single day of my professional life I have the threat of a suit hanging over me even if I perform perfectly which no one does.

It's nice you evaluate the profession by the neutral standard of its effect on you personally.

Where do you get the figure of med mal costing lest than 1% of health care dollars. I personally pay about 10% just for the insurance and that doesn't include actual suit related costs and doesn't even address defensive medicine.

I've seen figures. The cost of medical malpractice relative to health care costs is a fraction of 1%.

I personally know several lawyers and have consulted on some cases (not involving med mal). Some are my friends and some feel they are doing some good. I don't respect their profession. In my experience lawyers do not think in terms of right and wrong. They think in terms of what can be argued or not.

First of all, most lawyers don't spend a lot of time "making arguments" or considering issues involving serious questions of right and wrong. But anyway, yes, the function of lawyers is to represent the legal interests of their clients, not act like philosophers. And society is better off for it. Similarly, doctors have narrow professional ethics that prevent them from considering many issues of right and wrong in the care they give.

There is a price tag on every action and those cases where they are doing so much good for the little guy don't even get filed unless there is a possible big payoff at the end of the rainbow.

[/QUOTE]

Not true, even remotely. Most filed cases do not have a possible huge payoff at the end. I'm sorry, but all feelings aside, you really just don't know much about law. And anyway, yes, lawyers want to make a good living, just as doctors want to make a good living. There are plenty of well-credentialed lawyers who earn peanuts to make a different, just as some doctors do lower-paying work to help people. But many lawyers want to be financially comfortable, just as most doctors want to be comfortable. I mean, wtf? What do you expect of them?

No other profession has to put up with the second guessing that we get.

Not true at all. Actually, the opposite is true. In general, a negligence action depends on the standard of a community. That is second guessing. There is an exception for medical malpractice (and many other types of malpractice), which exempts doctors from the usual lay second guessing. Instead, the professional standard is used, and experts are used to determine if this standard has been met.

And all professionals are subject to lawsuits and second guessing. Now this system has many flaws and I support some pretty serious reform of our medmal system, but still, you don't know what you're talking about.

So yes my statement was a generalization but I stand by it and reiterate that I have no respect for law as a profession or a system. Your comments have served only solidify that attitude. Arguing that I should have more respect for my persecutors is like trying to get a sheep to respect a wolf (or maybe a fish and a shark would be a better analogy).

Persecutors. Good lord. I have tried to correct various of your misstatements of fact, but I realize this is futile. You will continue to take your ignorant, self-serving positions. There is no reason you should be expected to know about law. The problem is that you don't let your ignorance stop you from forming strong opinions.

Thankfully, doctors do not control our legal system, or they would make many self-serving changes that would only screw up society and make it even harder for lower-income people to access legal services.

 

[tncekm]

Thankfully, doctors do not control our legal system, or they would make many self-serving changes that would only screw up society and make it even harder for lower-income people to access legal services.

I love how you're telling everyone not to make sweeping generalizations about lawyers, yet can say this immediately afterward.

BTW, how would doctors screw up healthcare for poor folks, given the opportunity? I'd love to see the answer for this, especially considering the huge costs for medical care associated with trying to keep everyone out of court. People pay more so doctors can cover their asses when their best obviously wasn't good enough for someone.

 

[beetlerum]

[

QUOTE=pediheart;4407980]I'm in my 4th year of residency (med peds) and the hospital lawyers are STILL in negotiations over a lawsuit filed against me 3y ago.

Yes, the tort system is very inefficient. This is a serious problem. We should simply the adjudication process. The drawn out process doesn't produce better results.

 

[beetlerum]

I love how you're telling everyone not to make sweeping generalizations about lawyers, yet can say this immediately afterward.

BTW, how would doctors screw up healthcare for poor folks, given the opportunity? I'd love to see the answer for this, especially considering the huge costs for medical care associated with trying to keep everyone out of court. People pay more so doctors can cover their asses when their best obviously wasn't good enough for someone.

This is not nearly as much of a generalization as the ones made about law. I would never never say something like "99.6% of doctors hold ignorant, self-serving opinions about law."

Anyway, I know about medicine so at least it's not an ignorant generalization.

And I was talking about legal costs, not healthcare costs. Though again, the major cost drivers in medicine are not related to medical malpractice.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

And I was talking about legal costs, not healthcare costs. Though again, the major cost drivers in medicine are not related to medical malpractice.

In terms of overall cost of all heathcare, you're right. In terms of doctors, you're wrong. As docb said, 10% of his salary goes to his malpractice insurance. OB/GYNs can pay as much as 50% of salary.

 

[deleted87716]

😀 But I dont think all lawyers are like that. Maybe just 95% of them.

http://donors.studentdoctor.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=6957&d=1159567591

😉

 

[Faebinder]

This is not nearly as much of a generalization as the ones made about law. I would never never say something like "99.6% of doctors hold ignorant, self-serving opinions about law."

Anyway, I know about medicine so at least it's not an ignorant generalization.

And I was talking about legal costs, not healthcare costs. Though again, the major cost drivers in medicine are not related to medical malpractice.

I got two words for you....

DEFENSIVE MEDICINE.... Your numbers showing malpractice only accounts for 1% of the costs but once again no one goes and counts why Dr. XXX decided that patient YYY needs to stay 3 more days extra in the hospital cause the last thing he wants is a lawsuit if the patient decides to come back to the ER for pain (that most of the time is negligable except in some cases)... and those 3 days ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING FREE.

Every case has a small percentage of people that are not norm... but we are forced to generalize and keep/do-extra/order-more/be-more-cautious as if everyone will become one of those small percentage of people... And that drives the costs high.... why do we do that... FEAR OF LAWSUIT... we know better... yes we know that 90% of the patients will be normal and a few will be zebras... but we can't do what's efficient...

And yet, despite the fact that we Ct scan out of caution or keep them out of caution.... they dont want to pay for that extra.... let medicaid and medicare take care of it... and those two love not to pay.. and so costs get transfered to things that DO PAY in the hospital...

To think that the medical malpractice system does not have a ripple effect is very naive.

I have seen way too many cases where privately, the chief surgeon where I am says how awful it is that he can't operate on a person. Instead the person will end up dying PAINFULLY in 6 months to a year. Why can't he operate on the person? Cause there is a higher chance he will die in the OR and that's a lawsuit... So rather than giving the person a miniscule chance of survival... let him die painfully.. And believe me... if the chief aint operating on him... NO ONE ELSE WITHIN 3 hours of where I am will. He's the one who takes the harder cases from other surgeons.

 

[beetlerum]

DEFENSIVE MEDICINE.... Your numbers showing malpractice only accounts for 1% of the costs

Well, a fraction of a 1%. Perhaps 0.5 - 0.6%. But anyway.

but once again no one goes and counts why Dr. XXX decided that patient YYY needs to stay 3 more days extra in the hospital cause the last thing he wants is a lawsuit if the patient decides to come back to the ER for pain (that most of the time is negligable except in some cases)... and those 3 days ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING FREE.

As I said, the data on defensive medicine are pretty mixed as to whether this adds significantly to the cost caused by medical malpractice. Even if it doubles the cost, it still might be only 1%.

 

[Mirror Form]

But even winning a suit is pretty anticlimatic. It's very expensive, even if you win, due to lost productivity and cost of your defense team. In fact, I think most malpractice insurance is two-tiered, so it covers your defense, and the settlement if you lose.

The worse part is that even if you win, your insurance still goes up (by a lot). That's like getting into a car accident that was the fault of someone else, have that fact supported by the police, but still having your cost of insurance quadrupled.

 

[VALSALVA]

The average figure for ER docs getting sued now is ~1:20000 patient visits. For full time docs that = 1 suit every 6-7 years.

That makes a lot of sense because just a couple days ago, I head the new estimation is 7 suits in a career if you're starting now.

 

[docB]

It's nice you evaluate the profession by the neutral standard of its effect on you personally.

How else should I evaluate it? You noted your self that lawyers are not philosophers yet you demand that I should be? You're seeking validation from someone who is harmed on a daily basis by the system.

I've seen figures. The cost of medical malpractice relative to health care costs is a fraction of 1%.

You've seen figures? I pay premiums. 1% is crap. Maybe you should listen to the guy signing the checks rather than the law rags trying to justify this sham system and profession.

First of all, most lawyers don't spend a lot of time "making arguments" or considering issues involving serious questions of right and wrong. But anyway, yes, the function of lawyers is to represent the legal interests of their clients, not act like philosophers. And society is better off for it. Similarly, doctors have narrow professional ethics that prevent them from considering many issues of right and wrong in the care they give.

True doctors often neglect morality and substitute their patient's interests. But a doctor catering to a patient's interests doesn't screw someone else. By definition when a lawyer caters to a client's interests it will hurt the other party.

Not true, even remotely. Most filed cases do not have a possible huge payoff at the end.

Really? So you're arguing that "most filed cases" are not seeking monetary damages. I don't believe that for a minute.

I'm sorry, but all feelings aside, you really just don't know much about law. And anyway, yes, lawyers want to make a good living, just as doctors want to make a good living. There are plenty of well-credentialed lawyers who earn peanuts to make a different, just as some doctors do lower-paying work to help people. But many lawyers want to be financially comfortable, just as most doctors want to be comfortable.

So you're saying that doctors and lawyers are equal? Not true. Doctors don't prey on lawyers. Lawyers do prey on doctors.

I mean, wtf? What do you expect of them?

I expect the worst and I have never been let down. What I would like is for them to get off my back.

Not true at all. Actually, the opposite is true. In general, a negligence action depends on the standard of a community. That is second guessing. There is an exception for medical malpractice (and many other types of malpractice), which exempts doctors from the usual lay second guessing. Instead, the professional standard is used, and experts are used to determine if this standard has been met.

You lost me there. You note that med mal is a special case with an exception requiring a higher level of second guesser yet you also not that many other types of malpractice fit the same bill. Legal malpractice for example?

And all professionals are subject to lawsuits and second guessing. Now this system has many flaws and I support some pretty serious reform of our medmal system, but still, you don't know what you're talking about.

In any case the over litigious climate is not crippling other professions like it is medicine, at least not yet.

Persecutors. Good lord. I have tried to correct various of your misstatements of fact, but I realize this is futile. You will continue to take your ignorant, self-serving positions. There is no reason you should be expected to know about law. The problem is that you don't let your ignorance stop you from forming strong opinions. Thankfully, doctors do not control our legal system, or they would make many self-serving changes that would only screw up society and make it even harder for lower-income people to access legal services.

Reread this last little bit and tell me again how wrong I am to make unflattering generalizations about lawyers.