Malpractice story

[cbrons]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Just read a story of an ER physician who was sued for malpractice by one of the lowlife scum in the legal profession (if you disagree w/ this statement, you are entitled to your opinion but I'm not going to argue this so just be cool with it or complain to someone who cares). Anyway if you are bored @ the airport on your way to interviews, maybe youll find it interesting as well. Seriously it is pretty entertaining and eye-opening.

http://www.epmonthly.com/whitecoat/trial-of-a-whitecoat/

 

[JeetKuneDo]

"No patient has “just” abdominal pain. Physicians have to look at the patient as a whole, not as a single symptom."

Guy must be a DO right? 😀

 

[mitchlucker]

Was your goal keeping me up all night reading this and making me question becoming a physician based on how awful society is?

 

[tripwm]

Unfortunately, each of us will most likely be dragged to court for malpractice. It is going to suck.


My dad's 53, and he had his first trial hit the courts (incident occurred in 2004). The hospital, him, and another OB/GYN were being sued for 15 million. My dad couldn't sleep or stop worrying since if he lost a)malpractice insurance won't cover the full sum and b)did he really let a patient and her children-to-be down. He collapsed in the summer and was reading a BP of 170/110 while at work (he's an endurance athlete: recently threw down a 3:15 marathon, active triathlete/Ironman). Fast forward to the case, witnesses are being paid at about 1,000$ USD per hour, and the trial lasted three weeks. Due to the length of court, my dad was taking nights on-call due to the burden of his absence while attending a court during the day that attacked his very being. I stopped researching, my grandparents drove from 20 hours away, and my mom took off work so we could all be there for the entire thing. It is agonizing. And as the verdict was finally read and my dad was unanimously cleared of negligence, my entire family (myself included) were crying. It was the first time I cried in 6 years.

Court sucks.

 

[Emerica]

Court sucks.

I'm glad everything worked out for you and your family. Court most definitely does suck.

 

[DancinSarah]

Just read a story of an ER physician who was sued for malpractice by one of the lowlife scum in the legal profession (if you disagree w/ this statement, you are entitled to your opinion but I'm not going to argue this so just be cool with it or complain to someone who cares). Anyway if you are bored @ the airport on your way to interviews, maybe youll find it interesting as well. Seriously it is pretty entertaining and eye-opening.

http://www.epmonthly.com/whitecoat/trial-of-a-whitecoat/

Do you think government should enact tort reform, cbrons?

 

[TallScrubs]

Do you think government should enact tort reform, cbrons?

I'm not cbrons but I absolutely think tort reform would change the very face of our healthcare system.

Although it doesn't apply to WhiteCoat's case, a doctor I shadowed said something that will forever stay with me:

"There is a difference between a doctor making a mistake and malpractice".

Amen to that

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Do you think government should enact tort reform, cbrons?

Even if they wanted to. They wouldn't, lawyers would go ape ****.

 

[HBSlim]

Just read a story of an ER physician who was sued for malpractice by one of the lowlife scum in the legal profession (if you disagree w/ this statement, you are entitled to your opinion but I'm not going to argue this so just be cool with it or complain to someone who cares). Anyway if you are bored @ the airport on your way to interviews, maybe youll find it interesting as well. Seriously it is pretty entertaining and eye-opening.

http://www.epmonthly.com/whitecoat/trial-of-a-whitecoat/

Very interesting read. Thanks for sharing!

 

[UCD15]

Even if they wanted to. They wouldn't, lawyers would go ape ****.

Some states have enacted tort reform.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/olrdata/ins/rpt/2002-R-0782.htm

 

[alwaysaangel]

Some states have enacted tort reform.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/olrdata/ins/rpt/2002-R-0782.htm

Yeah and Obama wants to retract it. He doesn't believe in malpractice caps.

(what a surprise....lawyer....)

 

[Negrodamus]

I don't believe they should be capped either. Can you put a price on your legs or your eyes?

 

[alwaysaangel]

I don't believe they should be capped either. Can you put a price on your legs or your eyes?

No, but your insurance company can and for that matter DOES (read it - the verbage of my dismemberment policy is the most hilarious thing I've ever read).

Crap happens. Just because something unfortunate happened doesn't mean that the doctor was negligent.

True negligence is rare and lawyers tend to play on the emotions of poorly educated jurors to get enormous (and often inappropriate) awards against doctors. Sometimes when there was no negligence at all.

Although, I've actually been told by mentors that lawsuits are relatively rare and rarely lost but still - very frustrating that if you disagree that you did something wrong and want to fight it at all and not just pay out the insurance limits a doctor has to risk their own personal finances. Its why a lot of doctors just pay out a settlement instead of fighting against a BS claim.

 

[Cleavername]

I don't believe they should be capped either. Can you put a price on your legs or your eyes?

so we shouldn't sue for money then?

 

[apumic]

I don't believe they should be capped either. Can you put a price on your legs or your eyes?

Yes.

In utilitarian terms: Expected Lifetime Earnings (with both eyes) - Expected Lifetime Earnings (with only 1 eye) = value of 1 eye

Another way of looking at it would be: how much money would you spend to get your vision back? (I.e., if it were possible, how much would you spend?) For only 1 eye, it'd probably be substantially less than half what you'd be willing to pay for both eyes, since vision w/ only 1 eye is still pretty decent.

From this perspective NO lawsuit should be more than $3-5 million because most people will never even make near this amount. For someone without a post-HS education, an absolute cap of $1.2 million would be appropriate. For someone of a college education, $2.1 million and a masters $2.5 million. Of course, discrimination based on education would not fly; however, since we have all spent at least a portion of our lives as-is, we could create an algorithm assuming males live an average of 76 yrs & females 81 using a midpoint of a $2 million life-value cap:

Males: CAP = $2 million * [(76-age)/76]
Females: CAP = $2 million * [(81-age)/81]

 

[cbrons]

Do you think government should enact tort reform, cbrons?

I think lawyers should be shipped out of the country on a one-way raft. I have no words to describe how little I think of most lawyers. In my mind, they are lower than a worm in the ground. A cockroach is of a higher character and value to humanity than your average graduate of NYU law (IMO). And there should be tort reform. If you lose a malpractice case, the scum lawyer's firm should have pay whatever amount he was trying to steal from the doctor plus legal fees.

 

[texahn]

I just read all of that stuff.. If you're talking about ELE, what about all the time the doctor lost because of this stupid ass trial?

 

[DancinSarah]

True negligence is rare and lawyers tend to play on the emotions of poorly educated jurors to get enormous (and often inappropriate) awards against doctors.

This is true of any kind of litigation in which a jury is involved, not just medical cases. Lawyers and engineers are brought to court and the jury has as much knowledge about legal and engineering issues as they do about medicine. Do you think medical issues deserve special favor, or is our entire trial-by-jury system a problem?

 

[DancinSarah]

And there should be tort reform. If you lose a malpractice case, the scum lawyer's firm should have pay whatever amount he was trying to steal from the doctor plus legal fees.

The reason I asked you was, because the position of Mises and similar schools is actually against tort reform IIRC.

 

[cbrons]

The reason I asked you was, because the position of Mises and similar schools is actually against tort reform IIRC.

the position of most libertarians is one I just articulated, that if you lose a malpractice case you should have to pay.

 

[alwaysaangel]

This is true of any kind of litigation in which a jury is involved, not just medical cases. Lawyers and engineers are brought to court and the jury has as much knowledge about legal and engineering issues as they do about medicine. Do you think medical issues deserve special favor, or is our entire trial-by-jury system a problem?

No. Tort reform is general change in the civil system that would realistically cover pretty much every person in the United States. It would cover absurd awards to all sorts of lawsuits: engineers, construction companies, an individual who had someone slip and fall on their property, etc. etc. etc.

We are talking about malpractice in medicine as that is what is pertinent to most of our futures. But tort reform is essential for our country as a whole not just doctors. Trial by jury isn't an issue. CIVIAL SUITS are the problem.

Although, I agree with cbrons. I think one of the best reforms for tort is making lawyers responsible for the lawsuits they bring to trial. Give the jury 3 options: Negligence, no fault, or negligent lawsuit. Negligence being the defendent is at fault (be it a doctor for malpractice or a construction company for a broken stair), no fault being both sides were being reasonable and there is no fault to the defendant or the plaintiff, and negligent lawsuit being this is a stupid lawsuit that should have never been brought to trial and the plaintiff's lawyer will be censured/fined for ambulance chasing.

While we're at it completely remove any punitive damages. Or if we are going to have them - don't let the lawyers have a percentage of punitive and make it so the money goes to a charity of the plaintiff's choice. If its punitive why the heck should the plaintiff (or the plaintiff's lawyer) get the money? We're not talking about payment for pain and suffering at that point, we're talking about punishing the defendant, so take the money and put it towards a good cause. It NEVER made sense to me that the money went to the plaintiff. Doing this would discourage plaintiffs and lawyers from going after absurd punitive damages as they do not directly benefit from it.

 

[texahn]

the position of most libertarians is one I just articulated, that if you lose a malpractice case you should have to pay.

This is an idea i agree with.

 

[Forthegood]

Caps are stupid unless so specific to circumstance they are almost useless. They do some real damage when doctors really do deserve to be sued (yes, this does happen).

I don't know about you, but I have seen some people get in who I certainly would not refer to. The process is not perfect, and sometimes people do get hurt from negligence.

2 million is nothing if you are injured at 15 and require any sort of long term care. Health care is expensive.

And VERY few cases make it to court. By far more are settled.

The bigger problem are these attorneys who take the ridiculous cases at all (or advertise, don't get me started on that), and the fact that physician oversight into medical errors and claims is almost non-existent.

And what do you mean he is an attorney so of course he doesn't want caps? He's not stupid... if that is what you mean. What is your assumption there, that in law school they train people to be greedy, morally inept parasites? Ignorant people say the same about us. Or do you think maybe once he gets out of office he is going to become a medmal attorney? It's just like an attorney saying, "he is a doctor so of course he wants a cap." It's ignorant.

 

[DancinSarah]

the position of most libertarians is one I just articulated, that if you lose a malpractice case you should have to pay.

I don't disagree. To clarify my question, it should have been "do you think the legislative/executive branches should enact tort reform?", which is the procedure assumed when people refer to tort reform.

 

[Negrodamus]

Yes.

In utilitarian terms: Expected Lifetime Earnings (with both eyes) - Expected Lifetime Earnings (with only 1 eye) = value of 1 eye

Another way of looking at it would be: how much money would you spend to get your vision back? (I.e., if it were possible, how much would you spend?) For only 1 eye, it'd probably be substantially less than half what you'd be willing to pay for both eyes, since vision w/ only 1 eye is still pretty decent.

From this perspective NO lawsuit should be more than $3-5 million because most people will never even make near this amount. For someone without a post-HS education, an absolute cap of $1.2 million would be appropriate. For someone of a college education, $2.1 million and a masters $2.5 million. Of course, discrimination based on education would not fly; however, since we have all spent at least a portion of our lives as-is, we could create an algorithm assuming males live an average of 76 yrs & females 81 using a midpoint of a $2 million life-value cap:

Males: CAP = $2 million * [(76-age)/76]
Females: CAP = $2 million * [(81-age)/81]

That simply doesn't work. In cases of true negligence patients are often left with chronic and debilitating damage. Who pays for the medical bills stemming form the damage? Does that money come out of a the capped 2 million? What about those who are left blind, maimed or paralyzed by someone's negligence? 2 million dollars isn't going to cover the lifetime medical costs of a quadriplegic. What about inflation and the fact that cost of medicine increases by nearly 8% every year?

What about the fact that negligence has destroyed someone's life? Do they not deserve restitution BECAUSE they were made blind, paralyzed or otherwise harmed?

 

[DancinSarah]

Trial by jury isn't an issue. CIVIAL SUITS are the problem.

I'm curious how you reconcile this with your assertion in a previous post, that lawyers taking advantage of "poorly educated jurors" is a concern.

True negligence is rare and lawyers tend to play on the emotions of poorly educated jurors to get enormous (and often inappropriate) awards against doctors. Sometimes when there was no negligence at all.

 

[alwaysaangel]

I'm curious how you reconcile this with your assertion in a previous post, that lawyers taking advantage of "poorly educated jurors" is a concern.

I don't. You're focusing on the wrong part of that sentence. My main concern is that they play on emotions instead of facts. The 'poorly educated jurors' was just pointing out the general populace of jurors, as it is true they they tend to get rid of well-educated jurors in voir dire.

We can't do much about the overall education of society and we cannot expect them to understand medicine. Juries are what they are, and I think it often works. My issue is with the lawyers. Juries should be given facts and not have the widow paraded in front of them in hopes of eliciting emotions that yield huge awards to the plaintiff.

 

[apumic]

That simply doesn't work. In cases of true negligence patients are often left with chronic and debilitating damage. Who pays for the medical bills stemming form the damage? Does that money come out of a the capped 2 million? What about those who are left blind, maimed or paralyzed by someone's negligence? 2 million dollars isn't going to cover the lifetime medical costs of a quadriplegic. What about inflation and the fact that cost of medicine increases by nearly 8% every year?

What about the fact that negligence has destroyed someone's life? Do they not deserve restitution BECAUSE they were made blind, paralyzed or otherwise harmed?

I'd see the cap as being applicable only to the latter part (i.e., negligence for harming productivity & enjoyment of life). The former (medical costs due to negligence) isn't really "cappable" due to the range of medical costs; however, the medical expense portion could be paid out on a monthly basis based on the pt's medical needs that directly stem from the physician's error(s).

I'm not really a big fan of caps, though. I am more a fan of 1) making civil cases able to go either way (i.e., +/neutral/- or doctor guilt -- physician pays/no guilt -- physician's legal fees paid by complainant; no other fees paid out/frivolous case -- complainant and attorney each fined $1,000 or 10% of requested compensation, whichever is greater, plus a fair wage for lost productivity of the physician plus legal fees and psychotherapeutic fees for the damages to the physician sued); and 2) having actual requirements for juries (which violates the premise of a jury, but having intelligent, informed citizens making decisions would be best....)

 

[cbrons]

I'd see the cap as being applicable only to the latter part (i.e., negligence for harming productivity & enjoyment of life). The former (medical costs due to negligence) isn't really "cappable" due to the range of medical costs; however, the medical expense portion could be paid out on a monthly basis based on the pt's medical needs that directly stem from the physician's error(s).

I'm not really a big fan of caps, though. I am more a fan of 1) making civil cases able to go either way (i.e., +/neutral/- or doctor guilt -- physician pays/no guilt -- physician's legal fees paid by complainant; no other fees paid out/frivolous case -- complainant and attorney each fined $1,000 or 10% of requested compensation, whichever is greater, plus a fair wage for lost productivity of the physician plus legal fees and psychotherapeutic fees for the damages to the physician sued); and 2) having actual requirements for juries (which violates the premise of a jury, but having intelligent, informed citizens making decisions would be best....)

No, that still isn't a fair system. If people can sue for med costs plus pain and suffering, the dr should be able to sue for legal costs plus pain and suffering as well. And how it would work is that people wouldn't bring frivolous lawsuits to an attorney unless the law firm representing them insured against the costs of losing. And the costs of losing should be equal in magnitude.

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

 

[Dirt]

Thanks for posting this. Apparently good things do come out of pre-allo occasionally.

 

[cbrons]

Thanks for posting this. Apparently good things do come out of pre-allo occasionally.

no problem, I will be graduating from pre-allo in a few short months so in the past 3 years I have attempted to make my contributions more useful (here & there anyway).