Malpractice insurance

[Lisochka]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I have heared that malpractice insurance might cost from 150K-250K.
For example, ob/gyn pays for malpractice insurance 150K and his sallary is about 220K
So, he/she is making just 70K?
Am I wrong?

I have talked one surgeon and he said that he maid 10 years ago twice more money than now because nurses cost more now and malpractice insurance cost more also...

 

[jstuds_66]

That seems a little too high. You could pay almost any patient that to settle. When I talked to a family practice doctor in Idaho, he was paying $8K and has been practicing for 4 years. His partner who has been practicing 20+ years was paying around $15-$20K. A quarter of a million dollars for malpractice insurance seems a little too high.

 

[somemaybedoc]

That seems a little too high. You could pay almost any patient that to settle. When I talked to a family practice doctor in Idaho, he was paying $8K and has been practicing for 4 years. His partner who has been practicing 20+ years was paying around $15-$20K. A quarter of a million dollars for malpractice insurance seems a little too high.

FP is lower than a lot of procedural specialties. Don't know about the OP's exact numbers though.

 

[colbgw02]

I have heared that malpractice insurance might cost from 150K-250K.
For example, ob/gyn pays for malpractice insurance 150K and his sallary is about 220K
So, he/she is making just 70K?
Am I wrong?

I have talked one surgeon and he said that he maid 10 years ago twice more money than now because nurses cost more now and malpractice insurance cost more also...

i've heard similar numbers in the past, but nothing that is official. ob/gyn is known for its high premiums, but those particular numbers make me think that the physician has a lot of personal wealth he is trying to protect or has had adverse settlements/court rulings in the past.

 

[Chuckwalla]

The moral of the story? Don't go into high risk specialties like OB/GYN. That way suddenly mothers that can't find someone to deliver their baby can figure out that suing them for everything isn't a good idea.

 

[bretticus]

Seriously. I was really opposed to things like Tort reform until I started hearing about malpractice premiums. Look at some of the stuff on the AMA website - it's nuts!

 

[dantt]

One thing to keep in mind, the AMA has its own agenda and everything they say should not be taken at face value.

 

[alwaysaangel]

I never thought of OB/GYN as a high risk specialty - or are you kidding?

 

[pmpkn219]

Oh no, from what I've heard Ob-Gyn is Craaazy. Loosely paraphrased from an Ob I worked with at the hospital - you can maim, blind, practically kill a patient, but they might be OK with it. The tiniest thing goes wrong that in any way harms their child (especially unborn) and you're toast.

Also, think of the timing, many people are emotional messes while pregnant, so many things going on and their lives changing around them. Then the kid isn't perfect, Docs detect a flaw somewhere. Human nature immediately seeks to put the blame on something/someone/anything other than fate. So that amniocentesis did it! (even if not in this case) This couldn't have just happened as bad luck, totally unrelated to medical care, there has to be a Reason. People get frantic when they're told it's just fate/bad luck/whatever that causes an unfortunate outcome, we're not programmed to like that answer, if you will.

 

[Goguryo]

But you might lose privacy. (I think)

 

[kypdurron5]

I never thought of OB/GYN as a high risk specialty - or are you kidding?

That surprised me too at first when I read it. I can see someone saying that though; every time a child or mother doesn't survive the birthing process you open yourself up to a lawsuit. In this respect it's much more high risk than being an FP I guess, but it's still not what I'd typically think of when compared to neurosurgery, etc. In fact, the last article I read on malpractice premiums was written by a neurosurgeon that retired well before his time because he could no longer afford the premiums without charging ridiculous rates for his services. I completely support reform in the tort law arena; setting caps on judgements may hurt the very small minority of people who truly are victims of gross negligence, but there is no question of the far greater good it would do...not just for doctors, but for patients, hospitals, medical and pharmacological research, etc.

(I'm really not competing for post count or anything, but it looks like we're neck and neck again. There was an interesting AA thread over the last 3 days >).

 

[pmpkn219]

I read a really great article on anesthesiologists not too long ago. Apparently they banded together as a group and made good changes to their practice, and they're one of the few populations whose M&M and malpractice has gone down due to their efforts.

It was from an insurance source I believe, but I just can't recall. It was a very interesting read though, I hope other groups could learn from what worked for the anesthesiologists...

 

[Instatewaiter]

OB/gyn's especially in Florida pay ridiculous premiums. I am pretty sure that in florida in 2004 the malpractice premiums for OB/GYN rose to over $200,000 per year. As a result, Florida is struggling to find doctors to birth children especially high risk pregnancies. Here's some info on OB/GYN premiums.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-06/uomh-hco053105.php

The problem with malpractice premiums won't be recognized and sufficiently dealt with until it is too late. If kids that are planning to be doctors don't know how bad it is then how will the general public?

 

[kypdurron5]

OB/gyn's especially in Florida pay ridiculous premiums. I am pretty sure that in florida in 2004 the malpractice premiums for OB/GYN rose to over $200,000 per year. As a result, Florida is struggling to find doctors to birth children especially high risk pregnancies. Here's some info on OB/GYN premiums.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-06/uomh-hco053105.php

The problem with malpractice premiums won't be recognized and sufficiently dealt with until it is too late. If kids that are planning to be doctors don't know how bad it is then how will the general public?

Gosh, I can't imagine paying $195,000 of my hard earned money to an insurance company. Maybe we should get into the insurance business instead.... >).

 

[colbgw02]

But you might lose privacy. (I think)

that is simply not true. it is true that if you screw up you won't have to worry about the plaintiff coming to take your car, your home, and all your personal savings. but any sort of adverse outcome, whether through trial or settlement (regardless of admission of guilt), results in your name being listed in a national registry, and that is something that will follow you for every job application you ever submit.

 

[Oculus Sinistra]

I have heared that malpractice insurance might cost from 150K-250K. For example, ob/gyn pays for malpractice insurance 150K and his sallary is about 220K So, he/she is making just 70K? Am I wrong?

Yep... OB/GYN, Surgical specialties (ESPECIALLY Neurosurgery), etc are all high-priced. Comes with the territory. But other docs pay much less.

 

[shortitalian]

An OB/GYN that came to talk to one of our pre-med clubs said he pays $62k/year.

 

[nintendo]

Malpractice lawsuits are really affecting the practice of medicine (from what I've read/seen over the years). Docs are practicing "defensive medicine" now..i.e. ordering expensive tests that aren't necessary except to keep their bases covered. It is expensive for everyone including the patients..if only the lawsuit happy would think twice before pointing an angry finger. But then again, it's human nature to explain why.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

http://www.phius.com/medicine/medx/rates.htm

 

[dutchman]

Bottom line. STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM OB/GYN. Soon their income will be like that of janitors. U don't want to find out after all that training(10 years).

 

[Dogsjill]

Just to add to this:
My mom is an OB/GYN, and I can tell you that she and all of her partners live in fear of being sued. If the baby doesn't come out perfect, then it's suddenly her fault. Even if the mother drank and did drugs all throughout her pregnancy, my mom still gets the blame. Also, if they go to trial and are found guilty, they are responsible for providing monetary compensation for the child for 18 years. Thus, it can add up quite quickly. I know that one of her partners lost a case a few years ago (that is still being appealed because it really wasn't her fault) and the settlement was something like $40 million. So, once people stop suing doctors at the drop of a hat, maybe we can get the premiums to go down.

 

[Mac11]

I always though the big $$ in malpractice was surgery and EM - big surprise to see OB/GYN up there too.

You'd think that in an emergency more could go wrong... i dunno.

 

[Oculus Sinistra]

So, once people stop suing doctors at the drop of a hat, maybe we can get the premiums to go down.

Lawyers and insurance companies will not decrease their profits. So the decrease will likely never happen as long as doctors are willing to work under these conditions. Ban together and strike and you'll force the government's hand.

 

[dutchman]

Yes oculus. I agree with u, and I am sure that is comming. I think pre-meds and med students need to completely avoid those high risk specialties. let some states run out of OB/GYNs, so society can see what these lawyers and fraudsters are doing to the practice of medicine. I know someone who had some complications during child birth, and as soon as she got out of hospital she acted like she just won the lottery. telling people how she was expecting to get rich from her situation. This is what it has come down to, hence we have to protect ourselves from this mess

 

[Instatewaiter]

As most of you all know there are a bunch of differing ideas on how to lower malpractice premiums. The lawyers say we should have higher standards for doctors so that there are fewer screw ups, the republicans blame the high trial awards and the lawyers for providing the vehicle for patients to sue at the drop of the hat and the democrats blame the insurance companies for making such a profit from the malpractice premiums.

IMHO I think that things will not get better until each side realizes that the other has a genuine point.

Higher Standards
Stricter guidelines and punishments for clearly negligent doctors will no doubt limit the number of truly negligent malpractice cases. It will also make the public trust their doctor more leading to fewer cases. No doctor wants to be punished (in high malpractice premiums) for the incompetent doc in the next OR who is allowed to continue practicing and jacks up everyone elses premiums.

Insurance Companies
If the doctors were to band together and create their own 'insurance company' that wasn't 'for profit' we would be able to save all of the money that make up the profits of the insurance companies. Even though awards from malpractice cases have remained constant over the past years, premiums have continued to rise. Where is the extra money going if the awards have remained constant?


Tort reform, besides capping the award amount, there are a few ways deal with this this.

How can a jury made up of common people make an acurate decision as to whether a doctor was negligent? They can't. Having 2 'expert witnesses' completely disagree on what should have been the doctor's course of action won't help the medically-ignorant jury find the truth. Also, let's not forget the impact of emotion on a jury. To fix this, I think we should have a panel made up of both lawyers and doctors to act as the jury for malpractice cases. The doctors would understand the limitations of medicine as well as the correct course of action in certain cases. The lawyers would be there to interpret the law and also to act as a check and balance for the doctors. The doctors should have practiced for at least 10 years so that they have real world experience and can make decision about things that happened in the real world.

From this you would truely be able to separate negligent actions from frivalent cases. Also, you would get less variability in the outcomes. Juries of normal people may judge a case differently based on who makes up the jury. Are there a bunch of people who fall for the emotion and decide based on that, is there one person who pushes the rest around and gets his/her way? A set jury of lawyers and doctors would do away with such variability.

Next, lawyers who consistently bring frivolous cases before a court should be harshly fined. Here is a parallel: Let's stay you could steal cars and sell them to a chop-shop for $40,000 a piece. Everytime you got caught the only punishment was that you wasted your time and didn't get the 40 grand. What would keep you from continuing to steal cars? Nothing. There was no punishment. Same thing goes for ambulance-chasers. For those who bring lots of frivolous charges, a few very harsh fines should make them be more choosy about which cases they take. This will begin to unclog our justice system and will limit the number of cases brought to court. Insurance companies have to pay for the doctor's lawyer whether he is guilty or not. Fewer cases mean fewer lawyer bills and lower premiums. A lawyer should understand what a case with merit is and act as the first barrier to frivolous cases. A little social responsibility goes a long way. And hey, this may mean fewer lawyer jokes.

Anyone else have something to add?

 

[phaun]

instatewaiter...good post...just to add, you dont' pay these premiums from your "salary" but rather from the gross business you bring in. But, if your premiums are high, yes you can make a lower salary.

 

[pmpkn219]

I just recently found out that the WVSMA banded together and had some state-wide reform. Doing so (I'll have to find out What their strategy was) they managed to decrease lawsuits and medical errors at such an an alarming rate that they actually received a 15% refund, or lowered their premiums 15% from their malpractice insurers. Totally crazy eh?

So in the midst of all this rising cost/crisis/we're in need of reform, one group DID reform (on one level, it needs to spread now) so I believe there's hope. But we can't just let it go, because clearly there's a decent number of specialities/fields that are being driven out of business by our litigation/sue 'em all society, and that's bad for everyone.

 

[blackluke]

As most of you all know there are a bunch of differing ideas on how to lower malpractice premiums. The lawyers say we should have higher standards for doctors so that there are fewer screw ups, the republicans blame the high trial awards and the lawyers for providing the vehicle for patients to sue at the drop of the hat and the democrats blame the insurance companies for making such a profit from the malpractice premiums.

IMHO I think that things will not get better until each side realizes that the other has a genuine point.

Higher Standards
Stricter guidelines and punishments for clearly negligent doctors will no doubt limit the number of truly negligent malpractice cases. It will also make the public trust their doctor more leading to fewer cases. No doctor wants to be punished (in high malpractice premiums) for the incompetent doc in the next OR who is allowed to continue practicing and jacks up everyone elses premiums.

Insurance Companies
If the doctors were to band together and create their own 'insurance company' that wasn't 'for profit' we would be able to save all of the money that make up the profits of the insurance companies. Even though awards from malpractice cases have remained constant over the past years, premiums have continued to rise. Where is the extra money going if the awards have remained constant?


Tort reform, besides capping the award amount, there are a few ways deal with this this.

How can a jury made up of common people make an acurate decision as to whether a doctor was negligent? They can't. Having 2 'expert witnesses' completely disagree on what should have been the doctor's course of action won't help the medically-ignorant jury find the truth. Also, let's not forget the impact of emotion on a jury. To fix this, I think we should have a panel made up of both lawyers and doctors to act as the jury for malpractice cases. The doctors would understand the limitations of medicine as well as the correct course of action in certain cases. The lawyers would be there to interpret the law and also to act as a check and balance for the doctors. The doctors should have practiced for at least 10 years so that they have real world experience and can make decision about things that happened in the real world.

From this you would truely be able to separate negligent actions from frivalent cases. Also, you would get less variability in the outcomes. Juries of normal people may judge a case differently based on who makes up the jury. Are there a bunch of people who fall for the emotion and decide based on that, is there one person who pushes the rest around and gets his/her way? A set jury of lawyers and doctors would do away with such variability.

Next, lawyers who consistently bring frivolous cases before a court should be harshly fined. Here is a parallel: Let's stay you could steal cars and sell them to a chop-shop for $40,000 a piece. Everytime you got caught the only punishment was that you wasted your time and didn't get the 40 grand. What would keep you from continuing to steal cars? Nothing. There was no punishment. Same thing goes for ambulance-chasers. For those who bring lots of frivolous charges, a few very harsh fines should make them be more choosy about which cases they take. This will begin to unclog our justice system and will limit the number of cases brought to court. Insurance companies have to pay for the doctor's lawyer whether he is guilty or not. Fewer cases mean fewer lawyer bills and lower premiums. A lawyer should understand what a case with merit is and act as the first barrier to frivolous cases. A little social responsibility goes a long way. And hey, this may mean fewer lawyer jokes.

Anyone else have something to add?

I agree with your post, but you seem to forget a few things; The insurance lobby is every powerful in Washington, do you really think they are going let a bunch of doctors start a new company and take away business from them?
Also, lawyers that bring up frivolous claims repeatedly can be disbarred.

 

[Law2Doc]

Next, lawyers who consistently bring frivolous cases before a court should be harshly fined. Here is a parallel: Let's stay you could steal cars and sell them to a chop-shop for $40,000 a piece. Everytime you got caught the only punishment was that you wasted your time and didn't get the 40 grand. What would keep you from continuing to steal cars? Nothing. There was no punishment. Same thing goes for ambulance-chasers. For those who bring lots of frivolous charges, a few very harsh fines should make them be more choosy about which cases they take. This will begin to unclog our justice system and will limit the number of cases brought to court. Insurance companies have to pay for the doctor's lawyer whether he is guilty or not. Fewer cases mean fewer lawyer bills and lower premiums. A lawyer should understand what a case with merit is and act as the first barrier to frivolous cases. A little social responsibility goes a long way. And hey, this may mean fewer lawyer jokes.

Anyone else have something to add?

Lawyers who bring frivolous cases actually are already harshly fined. They are sanctioned, can be sued and potentially disciplined and very often are. However there is a lack of understanding on SDN as to what constitutes a "frivolous" claim. A losing case is often non-frivolous. A judge isn't going to supplant his view for a physicians and find a case to be frivolous if a lawyer can provide a "medical expert" who asserts that the reasonable standard of care was not met. So I'm not sure it's the lawyers you have issue with in terms of social responsibility, as opposed to these professional witnesses.

In fact, there was a good Harvard Med study published this past year that surveyed numerous malpractice lawsuits and determined that the rate of frivolous suits was actually quite low.

 

[Instatewaiter]

In fact, there was a good Harvard Med study published this past year that surveyed numerous malpractice lawsuits and determined that the rate of frivolous suits was actually quite low.

Yeah I read that study. Over a third of cases lacked evidence of medical error. On average, litigation costs were $52,000. So if a case went to court, litigation costs alone were more than $50 grand which made up a major part of what plaintiffs got.

About 30% of those meritless cases actually WON. They on average received over $300 grand.


Clearly when a third of the cases brought to court are frivolous the rate is NOT "quite low". When 10% of all cases are frivolous cases that are LOST by the doctor, that is major, not insignificant.

 

[Law2Doc]

Yeah I read that study. Over a third of cases lacked evidence of medical error. On average, litigation costs were $52,000. So if a case went to court, litigation costs alone were more than $50 grand which made up a major part of what plaintiffs got.

About 30% of those meritless cases actually WON. They on average received over $300 grand.


Clearly when a third of the cases brought to court are frivolous the rate is NOT "quite low". When 10% of all cases are frivolous cases that are LOST by the doctor, that is major, not insignificant.

You seem to have interpreted the study different than Harvard Med, apparently.🙄
Again, ultimately not prevailing in court does not equal "frivolous". And cases that won in court rarely fit the legal definition of frivolous. In general frivolous lawsuits are those that are simply baseless -- where there is no defensible case to be made. If an expert witness who is a physician is willing to testify that the doctors involved in a malpractice suit did not uphold the reasonable standard of care, then that case is, by definition, not frivolous -- it is a legitimate question of fact to be heard by a jury.

 

[Instatewaiter]

You seem to have interpreted the study different than Harvard Med, apparently.🙄
Again, ultimately not prevailing in court does not equal "frivolous". And cases that won in court rarely fit the legal definition of frivolous. In general frivolous lawsuits are those that are simply baseless -- where there is no defensible case to be made. If an expert witness who is a physician is willing to testify that the doctors involved in a malpractice suit did not uphold the reasonable standard of care, then that case is, by definition, not frivolous -- it is a legitimate question of fact to be heard by a jury.

The conclusions of the harvard study was that it is not as bad as some think, not that it is a great system. The system gets it wrong 3 out of 10 times.


Frivolous: lacking in any arguable basis or merit in either law or fact.

The harvard study itself divided the cases into those with and those without medical error. Since those that had no error had no merit, by definition they are frivolous. The fact that 30% of these cases w/o merit resulted in major compensation for the plaintiff should be troubling to everyone. Hell, 3% of the claims had no verifiable injury. The costs from cases that involve no error are not minor either; it makes up 15% of the overall malpractice costs. I am sure every doctor would love to have 15% reduction in his or her malpractice insurance, not to mention the stress of having a meritless case brought against you.

This is all moot since my initial point was that the decision whether to proceed with a case and make decisions on a case should not be left in the hands of people who have no medical experience. The study Law2doc cited supports this.

 

[Law2Doc]

The conclusions of the harvard study was that it is not as bad as some think, not that it is a great system. The system gets it wrong 3 out of 10 times.


Frivolous: lacking in any arguable basis or merit in either law or fact.

The harvard study itself divided the cases into those with and those without medical error. Since those that had no error had no merit, by definition they are frivolous. The fact that 30% of these cases w/o merit resulted in major compensation for the plaintiff should be troubling to everyone. Hell, 3% of the claims had no verifiable injury. The costs from cases that involve no error are not minor either; it makes up 15% of the overall malpractice costs. I am sure every doctor would love to have 15% reduction in his or her malpractice insurance, not to mention the stress of having a meritless case brought against you.

This is all moot since my initial point was that the decision whether to proceed with a case and make decisions on a case should not be left in the hands of people who have no medical experience. The study Law2doc cited supports this.

I won't get into a semantics issue with you as to the definition of frivolous, though your above statement doesn't exactly comport with the term as defined in the law. Something ultimately adjudicated to be meritless is not the same as something baseless on its face, and the former thus doesn't warrant the term frivolous.
But as for your latter point, you may want to look to vaccine law for a good workable model of a "specialized court" in the US. Pursuant to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, specialized judges exclusively hear claims of vaccine injuries and administer awards from a federal fund (derived from taxes on vaccines). These specialized judges tend to be pretty knowledgable on vaccines and far less renegade in terms of awards. Some sort of model like this, in my opinion, could be implemented for med mal and prove far more workable and less detrimental to the truly injured, than things like tort reform caps (which punish the legitimately devastated, while protecting the handful of bad screw ups in the professoin).

 

[back4more]

John Q

 

[MonkeyNuts!]

As most of you all know there are a bunch of differing ideas on how to lower malpractice premiums. The lawyers say we should have higher standards for doctors so that there are fewer screw ups, the republicans blame the high trial awards and the lawyers for providing the vehicle for patients to sue at the drop of the hat and the democrats blame the insurance companies for making such a profit from the malpractice premiums.

IMHO I think that things will not get better until each side realizes that the other has a genuine point.

Ya I agree, LeBow's plea for national health insurance might help it some too.

Higher Standards
Stricter guidelines and punishments for clearly negligent doctors will no doubt limit the number of truly negligent malpractice cases. It will also make the public trust their doctor more leading to fewer cases. No doctor wants to be punished (in high malpractice premiums) for the incompetent doc in the next OR who is allowed to continue practicing and jacks up everyone elses premiums.

Maybe. If the problem is that there are so many negligence cases that innocent doctors are being swept into wrongful accusations, maybe higher standards would work. But from what I understand nearly 99% of all patients who experience negligence don't get reimbursement, let alone legal action in general, so the number of tried cases actually based on negligence is low (about 17%). I think first and foremost we have to get juries and judges to really understand what "medical negligence" is, or we should really have cases reviewed by a true jury of our peers - other doctors, which you touch upon here:

How can a jury made up of common people make an acurate decision as to whether a doctor was negligent? ... The doctors should have practiced for at least 10 years so that they have real world experience and can make decision about things that happened in the real world.

Insurance Companies
If the doctors were to band together and create their own 'insurance company' that wasn't 'for profit' we would be able to save all of the money that make up the profits of the insurance companies. Even though awards from malpractice cases have remained constant over the past years, premiums have continued to rise. Where is the extra money going if the awards have remained constant?

It's an idea. It's one of those ideas like "why not just make a practice that makes you only pay in cash and sign 'i will not sue' waivers." The problem is that where it would solve your immediate financial problems, it really doesn't do much to improve the healthcare system (although sadly it looks like people must resort to such action).

Tort reform, besides capping the award amount, there are a few ways deal with this this.

There is also no-fault malpractice insurance or shifting the burden of no fault onto hospitals or other healthcare facilities. Not sure how well they work.

I'm hoping with the replacement of the monkey in office + the nearing economic recession + pissed employers will cause massive change in the near future...

 

[Jainraisig]

Though I agree with most thoughts on this thread - that there frivolous lawsuits and premiums that are too high- I just wanted to respond to the OP.
And Whoever put up that Web site with the list of premiums, that was helpful.
From my father, an orthopedic surgeon, I do know that premiums vary state by state and within a state as well as between specialties. In a moderate sized NC city, his malpractice insurance was $50k. In a small AL town, it is much less.
One thing to note is that it is not necessarily as simple as a Dr.'s salary being $220k, having a $150k policy and therefore taking home $70k. In a single or multi-partner practice, you have to make (i.e. bill) well over your salary. You may bill 1 million, $150k of which would go to insurance, $150k go to office space and supplies, and $300k for loaded staff salaries, $100k lost by lack of payment by patients and their insurance companies, etc. Those numbers are totally made up but you get my drift. Most doctors will bill or pull in more than their salary but that goes to overhead (which includes malpractice insurance).

 

[njbmd]

I have heared that malpractice insurance might cost from 150K-250K.
For example, ob/gyn pays for malpractice insurance 150K and his sallary is about 220K
So, he/she is making just 70K?
Am I wrong?

I have talked one surgeon and he said that he maid 10 years ago twice more money than now because nurses cost more now and malpractice insurance cost more also...

Malpractice premiums vary from location to location. This can be due to many factors not the least of which are the carriers that offer malpractice insurance (few carriers = higher premiums), the specialty that you are in (high risk versus low risk) and the state that you choose to practice in (West Virginia not good; Virginia good). Head on over to the AMA website and get yourself educated on some of the issues at stake. 🙂

 

[Law2Doc]

I think first and foremost we have to get juries and judges to really understand what "medical negligence" is, or we should really have cases reviewed by a true jury of our peers - other doctors, which you touch upon here:

I don't think you can pan this off on the juries, folks doing their civic duty, often under protest. Judges and juries listen to the experts, and there is an expert (i.e. a physician) testifying in in nearly every successful negligence case. If a physician gets up and testifies that he is "board certified in X and has Y number of years experience, and in his opinion the doctor being sued deviated from sound medical practices" or the "reasonable standard of care", then it is not really their lack of understanding at issue or at fault. Perhaps the real answer would be to have the medical profession impose sanctions on its member physicians who provide such testimony in cases where there is no basis in reality. Nothing would shut down this kind of litigation faster.

 

[Law2Doc]

nah, thats a really BAD idea!👎

I'm sensing a troll-like pattern in your responses.🙄