Patient lawsuits

[core0]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Can someone explain what "dismissed with prejudice" means?
Also, 3dtp, sorry that you got sued as an intern...that would have been horrible on top of the normal intern experiences/stress.

Also, those med students on here need to realize that being sued is something you have to mention on every job application and medical license application, whether or not you lost the suit, etc. Also, insurance companies often like to settle (cheaper for them) but that ends up on the doc's record as something bad/adverse and I believe this is also recorded in the "National Provider Databank" which is basically a nationwide record of all doctors.

I do think we need reforms, and should consider reforms to our entire tort system, not just medical liability reform. We don't want to keep poor people who have a complaint/problem that is legit. from being able to bring a lawsuit, and I don't think we want to go to a totally no-fault system unless there is some built-in mechanism to help weed out the few bad/actually negligent docs, but I don't think our current system is sustainable long term for our society, nor is it really just. Unfortunately, a lot of this I think comes down to the entitled mentality that a lot of people have in our society...I don't imagine tort law has changed a lot since the 1950's, yet we have people who will sue for any possible thing, just because they are hoping to hit the jackpot.

Dismissed with prejudice means that it was dismissed for good reason and the plaintiff cannot bring the suit back. As opposed to dismissed without prejudice where a plaintiff can refile the suit. From my understanding the first means there was no merit while the second means there was some problem with the way that it was filed. I'm sure Law2doc has a better response.

David Carpenter, PA-C

 

[Apollyon]

Dismissed with prejudice means that it was dismissed for good reason and the plaintiff cannot bring the suit back. As opposed to dismissed without prejudice where a plaintiff can refile the suit. From my understanding the first means there was no merit while the second means there was some problem with the way that it was filed. I'm sure Law2doc has a better response.

David Carpenter, PA-C

No, your answer is pretty spot-on. However, I would not go so far as to say there was no merit or the second that there was a problem with the way it was filed. Straightforwardly, "with prejudice" means that the suit cannot be refiled on the same claim. Without prejudice means that the suit can be refiled on the same claim in the future. Dismissal with prejudice is not subject to appeal - it is a "done deal" - kind of like cremation or burial is final disposition of a dead body. Although implied that there is no merit, also, if there has been misconduct on the part of the plaintiff, that can also factor into it.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Can someone explain what "dismissed with prejudice" means?
Also, 3dtp, sorry that you got sued as an intern...that would have been horrible on top of the normal intern experiences/stress.

Also, those med students on here need to realize that being sued is something you have to mention on every job application and medical license application, whether or not you lost the suit, etc. Also, insurance companies often like to settle (cheaper for them) but that ends up on the doc's record as something bad/adverse and I believe this is also recorded in the "National Provider Databank" which is basically a nationwide record of all doctors.

I do think we need reforms, and should consider reforms to our entire tort system, not just medical liability reform. We don't want to keep poor people who have a complaint/problem that is legit. from being able to bring a lawsuit, and I don't think we want to go to a totally no-fault system unless there is some built-in mechanism to help weed out the few bad/actually negligent docs, but I don't think our current system is sustainable long term for our society, nor is it really just. Unfortunately, a lot of this I think comes down to the entitled mentality that a lot of people have in our society...I don't imagine tort law has changed a lot since the 1950's, yet we have people who will sue for any possible thing, just because they are hoping to hit the jackpot.

That is not what I thought no-fault meant. I thought no-fault arbitration meant that victim compensation is not based upon negligence, but rather medical injury? I do not see why it would need to eliminate the ability to also find the physician negligent...

No-fault arbitration sounds like a good idea. It would be hard to apply it as a blanket policy even on a State level without changing the 7th Amendment. But I suppose one could use binding arbitration as a signed agreement by a patient when possible, and when not possible (e.g. the ER), have non-binding arbitration?

http://medicaleconomics.modernmedic...igation/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/598215