P
Peter Jason
Guest
I want to pick a surgeon or doctor who has been sued the least number of times.
Is there a register of some sort I can look up?
Is there a register of some sort I can look up?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
P
Pf Riley
Guest
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 14:03:13 +1100, "Peter Jason"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I want to pick a surgeon or doctor who has been sued the least number of times.
>
>Is there a register of some sort I can look up?
I don't know about in Australia, but the answer in the U.S. is "no" for good reason. The number of
lawsuits filed against a physician is generally an unreliable method for judging the competency of a
physician. Same goes for "report cards" for hospitals that judge hospitals based on complication
rates -- the hospitals that are advanced in their fields and take on the challenging cases will
register as "worse" because of higher complication rates when they may actually provide overall much
better care and chance for success when adjusted for severity of the condition being treated.
PF
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I want to pick a surgeon or doctor who has been sued the least number of times.
>
>Is there a register of some sort I can look up?
I don't know about in Australia, but the answer in the U.S. is "no" for good reason. The number of
lawsuits filed against a physician is generally an unreliable method for judging the competency of a
physician. Same goes for "report cards" for hospitals that judge hospitals based on complication
rates -- the hospitals that are advanced in their fields and take on the challenging cases will
register as "worse" because of higher complication rates when they may actually provide overall much
better care and chance for success when adjusted for severity of the condition being treated.
PF
Y
Yelxol
Guest
Sounds like a direct quote from the AMA. How would you, as a mbr of the medical profession, suggest
that a person 'check out' the competency of a physician (or health care facility)? Or should one
simply assume/hope that person is not one of the 'bad ones'? Will
[email protected] (PF Riley) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 14:03:13 +1100, "Peter Jason" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I want to pick a surgeon or doctor who has been sued the least number of times.
> >
> >Is there a register of some sort I can look up?
>
> I don't know about in Australia, but the answer in the U.S. is "no" for good reason. The number of
> lawsuits filed against a physician is generally an unreliable method for judging the competency of
> a physician. Same goes for "report cards" for hospitals that judge hospitals based on complication
> rates -- the hospitals that are advanced in their fields and take on the challenging cases will
> register as "worse" because of higher complication rates when they may actually provide overall
> much better care and chance for success when adjusted for severity of the condition being treated.
>
> PF
that a person 'check out' the competency of a physician (or health care facility)? Or should one
simply assume/hope that person is not one of the 'bad ones'? Will
[email protected] (PF Riley) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 14:03:13 +1100, "Peter Jason" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I want to pick a surgeon or doctor who has been sued the least number of times.
> >
> >Is there a register of some sort I can look up?
>
> I don't know about in Australia, but the answer in the U.S. is "no" for good reason. The number of
> lawsuits filed against a physician is generally an unreliable method for judging the competency of
> a physician. Same goes for "report cards" for hospitals that judge hospitals based on complication
> rates -- the hospitals that are advanced in their fields and take on the challenging cases will
> register as "worse" because of higher complication rates when they may actually provide overall
> much better care and chance for success when adjusted for severity of the condition being treated.
>
> PF
K
Kurt Ullman
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (yelxol) wrote:
>Sounds like a direct quote from the AMA. How would you, as a mbr of the medical profession, suggest
>that a person 'check out' the competency of a physician (or health care facility)? Or should one
>simply assume/hope that person is not one of the 'bad ones'?
The best way is to ask other patients, other professionals such as nurses and other docs if
this was someone they would send their family to. . That certainly tells you more in most cases
than suits.
--
"Distracting a politician from governing is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
--PJ O'Rourke
[email protected] (yelxol) wrote:
>Sounds like a direct quote from the AMA. How would you, as a mbr of the medical profession, suggest
>that a person 'check out' the competency of a physician (or health care facility)? Or should one
>simply assume/hope that person is not one of the 'bad ones'?
The best way is to ask other patients, other professionals such as nurses and other docs if
this was someone they would send their family to. . That certainly tells you more in most cases
than suits.
--
"Distracting a politician from governing is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
--PJ O'Rourke
K
Kent H.
Guest
It depends on which state you are in. In California, a malpractice judgement becomes a matter of
public record when it exceeds $50,000 or something like that. Do a search on the medical board of
your state;, look up a physician you want to see, and you can probably see which school he went to
and what year he graduated from medical school, though all that varies from state to state. A good
source for credentialing is www.abms.org. Register,and you can determine if your provider is board
certified in his specialty. Good Luck Kent
Peter Jason wrote:
>
> I want to pick a surgeon or doctor who has been sued the least number of times.
>
> Is there a register of some sort I can look up?
public record when it exceeds $50,000 or something like that. Do a search on the medical board of
your state;, look up a physician you want to see, and you can probably see which school he went to
and what year he graduated from medical school, though all that varies from state to state. A good
source for credentialing is www.abms.org. Register,and you can determine if your provider is board
certified in his specialty. Good Luck Kent
Peter Jason wrote:
>
> I want to pick a surgeon or doctor who has been sued the least number of times.
>
> Is there a register of some sort I can look up?
O
Orac
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Peter Jason" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I want to pick a surgeon or doctor who has been sued the least number of times.
>
> Is there a register of some sort I can look up?
It depends on the state you are in. Your address tells me you're in Australia; so I can't help you.
However, let me just point out that the number of times a doctor has been sued doesn't always
correlate with how good (or bad) he/she is, at least in the U.S. Certain high-risk specialties get
sued fairly frequently, no matter how good the doctor is. (High risk OB comes to mind, as does
trauma or neurosurgery.)
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
"Peter Jason" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I want to pick a surgeon or doctor who has been sued the least number of times.
>
> Is there a register of some sort I can look up?
It depends on the state you are in. Your address tells me you're in Australia; so I can't help you.
However, let me just point out that the number of times a doctor has been sued doesn't always
correlate with how good (or bad) he/she is, at least in the U.S. Certain high-risk specialties get
sued fairly frequently, no matter how good the doctor is. (High risk OB comes to mind, as does
trauma or neurosurgery.)
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
K
Kurt Ullman
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Orac
<[email protected]> wrote:
>However, let me just point out that the number of times a doctor has been sued doesn't always
>correlate with how good (or bad) he/she is, at least in the U.S. Certain high-risk specialties get
>sued fairly frequently, no matter how good the doctor is. (High risk OB comes to mind, as does
>trauma or neurosurgery.)
>
At least in the US, there are a couple of studies that show technical expertise has little
relationship to getting sued. A**holes are more likely to get sued even if they did nothing wrong.
________________________________________________________
Any ideas expressed on this account should not be taken as representing Mr. Ullman's own, for
indeed he has none. If anyone objects to any statements he makes, he is quite prepared not only to
retract them, but also to vehemently deny under oath that he made them in the first place.
________________________________________________________
<[email protected]> wrote:
>However, let me just point out that the number of times a doctor has been sued doesn't always
>correlate with how good (or bad) he/she is, at least in the U.S. Certain high-risk specialties get
>sued fairly frequently, no matter how good the doctor is. (High risk OB comes to mind, as does
>trauma or neurosurgery.)
>
At least in the US, there are a couple of studies that show technical expertise has little
relationship to getting sued. A**holes are more likely to get sued even if they did nothing wrong.
________________________________________________________
Any ideas expressed on this account should not be taken as representing Mr. Ullman's own, for
indeed he has none. If anyone objects to any statements he makes, he is quite prepared not only to
retract them, but also to vehemently deny under oath that he made them in the first place.
________________________________________________________
R
Robert A. Fink
Guest
Orac <[email protected]> wrote:
>However, let me just point out that the number of times a doctor has been sued doesn't always
>correlate with how good (or bad) he/she is, at least in the U.S. Certain high-risk specialties get
>sued fairly frequently, no matter how good the doctor is. (High risk OB comes to mind, as does
>trauma or neurosurgery.)
And also, the number of times one has been sued is not as important as the outcome of those suits.
Anyone can file a suit over anything.
Best,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M.D., FACS, P. C. 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, California 94704-2636 USA
Telephone: 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557 <http://www.rafink.com>
"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
--------------------------------------
NOTE: The above message is not to be considered as "medical advice". Medical advice can be given
only after a "hands-on" examination of the patient by a physician.
========================================
>However, let me just point out that the number of times a doctor has been sued doesn't always
>correlate with how good (or bad) he/she is, at least in the U.S. Certain high-risk specialties get
>sued fairly frequently, no matter how good the doctor is. (High risk OB comes to mind, as does
>trauma or neurosurgery.)
And also, the number of times one has been sued is not as important as the outcome of those suits.
Anyone can file a suit over anything.
Best,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M.D., FACS, P. C. 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, California 94704-2636 USA
Telephone: 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557 <http://www.rafink.com>
"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
--------------------------------------
NOTE: The above message is not to be considered as "medical advice". Medical advice can be given
only after a "hands-on" examination of the patient by a physician.
========================================
K
Kent H.
Guest
No one is asking how lawsuits have been filed. The fundamental question is how many judgments of a
significant dollar amount have been awarded against the doctor.
"Robert A. Fink, M. D." wrote:
>
> Orac <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >However, let me just point out that the number of times a doctor has been sued doesn't always
> >correlate with how good (or bad) he/she is, at least in the U.S. Certain high-risk specialties
> >get sued fairly frequently, no matter how good the doctor is. (High risk OB comes to mind, as
> >does trauma or neurosurgery.)
>
> And also, the number of times one has been sued is not as important as the outcome of those suits.
> Anyone can file a suit over anything.
>
> Best,
>
> Bob
>
> Robert A. Fink, M.D., FACS, P. C. 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, California 94704-2636 USA
>
>
> Telephone: 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557 <http://www.rafink.com>
>
> "Ex Tristitia Virtus"
>
> --------------------------------------
> NOTE: The above message is not to be considered as "medical advice". Medical advice can be given
> only after a "hands-on" examination of the patient by a physician.
>
> ========================================
significant dollar amount have been awarded against the doctor.
"Robert A. Fink, M. D." wrote:
>
> Orac <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >However, let me just point out that the number of times a doctor has been sued doesn't always
> >correlate with how good (or bad) he/she is, at least in the U.S. Certain high-risk specialties
> >get sued fairly frequently, no matter how good the doctor is. (High risk OB comes to mind, as
> >does trauma or neurosurgery.)
>
> And also, the number of times one has been sued is not as important as the outcome of those suits.
> Anyone can file a suit over anything.
>
> Best,
>
> Bob
>
> Robert A. Fink, M.D., FACS, P. C. 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, California 94704-2636 USA
>
>
> Telephone: 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557 <http://www.rafink.com>
>
> "Ex Tristitia Virtus"
>
> --------------------------------------
> NOTE: The above message is not to be considered as "medical advice". Medical advice can be given
> only after a "hands-on" examination of the patient by a physician.
>
> ========================================
Y
Yelxol
Guest
Dr. Fink: What you say is not totally correct. For example, you say that "Anyone can file a suit
over anything." In most states the 'potential' plaintiff must first convince an attorney that
their complaint is credible. And do not assume this step to be an easy one. This is not, by any
means, the same as a rear end collision, filed by some ambulance chaser. As you know, most med
mal actions are filed on a contingency basis, and if the attorney - most often along with other
partners and medical associates - isn't totally convinced of the feasible of a successful suit,
s/he will not file. If the person clears this hurdle, (in most states) their claim must then be
sanctioned by a qualified physician. In addition, medical experts must be located, convinced and
paid (in advance). And, believe me, they are not cheap. Then come the costs of depositions,
travel, etc, etc, etc. To get an action into a courtroom can cost hundreds of thousands of
dollars, years of a person's life, hours and hours of depositions, incredible and unimaginable
stress to the person and their family, and this is only a short list. So... I respectfully
disagree, doc. Best regards. Will - whose been there.
"Robert A. Fink, M. D." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Orac <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >However, let me just point out that the number of times a doctor has been sued doesn't always
> >correlate with how good (or bad) he/she is, at least in the U.S. Certain high-risk specialties
> >get sued fairly frequently, no matter how good the doctor is. (High risk OB comes to mind, as
> >does trauma or neurosurgery.)
>
>
> And also, the number of times one has been sued is not as important as the outcome of those suits.
> Anyone can file a suit over anything.
>
> Best,
>
> Bob
>
>
> Robert A. Fink, M.D., FACS, P. C. 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, California 94704-2636 USA
>
>
> Telephone: 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557 <http://www.rafink.com>
>
> "Ex Tristitia Virtus"
>
> --------------------------------------
> NOTE: The above message is not to be considered as "medical advice". Medical advice can be given
> only after a "hands-on" examination of the patient by a physician.
>
> ========================================
over anything." In most states the 'potential' plaintiff must first convince an attorney that
their complaint is credible. And do not assume this step to be an easy one. This is not, by any
means, the same as a rear end collision, filed by some ambulance chaser. As you know, most med
mal actions are filed on a contingency basis, and if the attorney - most often along with other
partners and medical associates - isn't totally convinced of the feasible of a successful suit,
s/he will not file. If the person clears this hurdle, (in most states) their claim must then be
sanctioned by a qualified physician. In addition, medical experts must be located, convinced and
paid (in advance). And, believe me, they are not cheap. Then come the costs of depositions,
travel, etc, etc, etc. To get an action into a courtroom can cost hundreds of thousands of
dollars, years of a person's life, hours and hours of depositions, incredible and unimaginable
stress to the person and their family, and this is only a short list. So... I respectfully
disagree, doc. Best regards. Will - whose been there.
"Robert A. Fink, M. D." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Orac <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >However, let me just point out that the number of times a doctor has been sued doesn't always
> >correlate with how good (or bad) he/she is, at least in the U.S. Certain high-risk specialties
> >get sued fairly frequently, no matter how good the doctor is. (High risk OB comes to mind, as
> >does trauma or neurosurgery.)
>
>
> And also, the number of times one has been sued is not as important as the outcome of those suits.
> Anyone can file a suit over anything.
>
> Best,
>
> Bob
>
>
> Robert A. Fink, M.D., FACS, P. C. 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, California 94704-2636 USA
>
>
> Telephone: 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557 <http://www.rafink.com>
>
> "Ex Tristitia Virtus"
>
> --------------------------------------
> NOTE: The above message is not to be considered as "medical advice". Medical advice can be given
> only after a "hands-on" examination of the patient by a physician.
>
> ========================================
D
Dr. Andrew B. C
Guest
[email protected] (Kurt Ullman) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (yelxol) wrote:
> >Sounds like a direct quote from the AMA. How would you, as a mbr of the medical profession,
> >suggest that a person 'check out' the competency of a physician (or health care facility)? Or
> >should one simply assume/hope that person is not one of the 'bad ones'?
> The best way is to ask other patients, other professionals such as nurses and other docs if this
> was someone they would send their family to. . That certainly tells you more in most cases than
> suits.
Would concur with you, Kurt.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (yelxol) wrote:
> >Sounds like a direct quote from the AMA. How would you, as a mbr of the medical profession,
> >suggest that a person 'check out' the competency of a physician (or health care facility)? Or
> >should one simply assume/hope that person is not one of the 'bad ones'?
> The best way is to ask other patients, other professionals such as nurses and other docs if this
> was someone they would send their family to. . That certainly tells you more in most cases than
> suits.
Would concur with you, Kurt.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
R
Robert A. Fink
Guest
[email protected] (yelxol) wrote:
>To get an action into a courtroom can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, years of a person's
>life, hours and hours of depositions, incredible and unimaginable stress to the person and their
>family, and this is only a short list. So... I respectfully disagree, doc. Best regards. Will -
>whose been there.
Partially true, but no cigar. There are people out there who file lawsuits for recreational
purposes. One sued me 20 years ago for prescribing epilepsy medication while he was in the hospital
on a psychiatric hold (for assaulting his neighbor). He accused me of "poisoning" him and "false
imprisonment" because the state held him for 72 hours for psychiatric observation.
He forced my malpractice carrier to spend money for a defense lawyer and for that lawyer to appear
at three different hearings when this nutcase appealed the dismissal of the case all the way to the
California Supreme Court.
Some states have "panels" which "certify" suits for merit, but many of those panels are nothing more
than rubber stamps and the suits can proceed even in the absence of a certificate of merit.
I have been there also.....
Best,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M.D., FACS, P. C. 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, California 94704-2636 USA
Telephone: 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557 <http://www.rafink.com>
"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
--------------------------------------
NOTE: The above message is not to be considered as "medical advice". Medical advice can be given
only after a "hands-on" examination of the patient by a physician.
========================================
>To get an action into a courtroom can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, years of a person's
>life, hours and hours of depositions, incredible and unimaginable stress to the person and their
>family, and this is only a short list. So... I respectfully disagree, doc. Best regards. Will -
>whose been there.
Partially true, but no cigar. There are people out there who file lawsuits for recreational
purposes. One sued me 20 years ago for prescribing epilepsy medication while he was in the hospital
on a psychiatric hold (for assaulting his neighbor). He accused me of "poisoning" him and "false
imprisonment" because the state held him for 72 hours for psychiatric observation.
He forced my malpractice carrier to spend money for a defense lawyer and for that lawyer to appear
at three different hearings when this nutcase appealed the dismissal of the case all the way to the
California Supreme Court.
Some states have "panels" which "certify" suits for merit, but many of those panels are nothing more
than rubber stamps and the suits can proceed even in the absence of a certificate of merit.
I have been there also.....
Best,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M.D., FACS, P. C. 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, California 94704-2636 USA
Telephone: 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557 <http://www.rafink.com>
"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
--------------------------------------
NOTE: The above message is not to be considered as "medical advice". Medical advice can be given
only after a "hands-on" examination of the patient by a physician.
========================================
O
Orac
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (yelxol) wrote:
> Dr. Fink: What you say is not totally correct. For example, you say that "Anyone can file a suit
> over anything." In most states the 'potential' plaintiff must first convince an attorney that
> their complaint is credible. And do not assume this step to be an easy one. This is not, by
> any means, the same as a rear end collision, filed by some ambulance chaser.
Not entirely true. It depends on the state in which the suit is brought and the tendency of juries
in that state, as well as the intestinal fortitude of the hospitals to go to court. I've witnessed
some lawsuits over some pretty frivolous things. They all lost, but they all made it to court.
> As you know, most med mal actions are filed on a contingency basis, and if the attorney - most
> often along with other partners and medical associates - isn't totally convinced of the feasible
> of a successful suit, s/he will not file.
On the other hand, if the attorney thinks he can get a doctor, hospital, or the malpractice
insurance company to settle, rather than going through the expense of a jury trial, he may well do
so. It's called going after the low-lying fruit.
> If the person clears this hurdle, (in most states) their claim must then be sanctioned by a
> qualified physician.
Oh, please. This part is rarely a problem. There are a bunch of physicians who will attest to the
validity of almost any lawsuit--for a fee of course. They're usually the same physicians who later
make tons of money testifying as expert witnesses if the case goes to trial.
> In addition, medical experts must be located, convinced and paid (in advance). And, believe me,
> they are not cheap.
This much is true, although all it usually takes to convince them is to pay them enough.
> Then come the costs of depositions, travel, etc, etc, etc.
Again, true, if the suit ever gets to that point.
> To get an action into a courtroom can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, years of a person's
> life, hours and hours of depositions, incredible and unimaginable stress to the person and their
> family, and this is only a short list.
Yes, but that really misses the point. The goal of such lawsuits is usually not to get to the
courtroom. In fact, if such a suit goes to the courtroom, the plaintiff will lose more often than
not. The goal is to intimidate the doctor or his malpractice insurance company into settling to
"make it go away." A malpractice suit is a traumatic event to most doctors. Most of them lose their
will to fight rather quickly and are more than willing to settle, rather than face the hostile
questioning that will happen at a deposition or, worse yet, to face the nasty
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
[email protected] (yelxol) wrote:
> Dr. Fink: What you say is not totally correct. For example, you say that "Anyone can file a suit
> over anything." In most states the 'potential' plaintiff must first convince an attorney that
> their complaint is credible. And do not assume this step to be an easy one. This is not, by
> any means, the same as a rear end collision, filed by some ambulance chaser.
Not entirely true. It depends on the state in which the suit is brought and the tendency of juries
in that state, as well as the intestinal fortitude of the hospitals to go to court. I've witnessed
some lawsuits over some pretty frivolous things. They all lost, but they all made it to court.
> As you know, most med mal actions are filed on a contingency basis, and if the attorney - most
> often along with other partners and medical associates - isn't totally convinced of the feasible
> of a successful suit, s/he will not file.
On the other hand, if the attorney thinks he can get a doctor, hospital, or the malpractice
insurance company to settle, rather than going through the expense of a jury trial, he may well do
so. It's called going after the low-lying fruit.
> If the person clears this hurdle, (in most states) their claim must then be sanctioned by a
> qualified physician.
Oh, please. This part is rarely a problem. There are a bunch of physicians who will attest to the
validity of almost any lawsuit--for a fee of course. They're usually the same physicians who later
make tons of money testifying as expert witnesses if the case goes to trial.
> In addition, medical experts must be located, convinced and paid (in advance). And, believe me,
> they are not cheap.
This much is true, although all it usually takes to convince them is to pay them enough.
> Then come the costs of depositions, travel, etc, etc, etc.
Again, true, if the suit ever gets to that point.
> To get an action into a courtroom can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, years of a person's
> life, hours and hours of depositions, incredible and unimaginable stress to the person and their
> family, and this is only a short list.
Yes, but that really misses the point. The goal of such lawsuits is usually not to get to the
courtroom. In fact, if such a suit goes to the courtroom, the plaintiff will lose more often than
not. The goal is to intimidate the doctor or his malpractice insurance company into settling to
"make it go away." A malpractice suit is a traumatic event to most doctors. Most of them lose their
will to fight rather quickly and are more than willing to settle, rather than face the hostile
questioning that will happen at a deposition or, worse yet, to face the nasty
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
Y
Yelxol
Guest
Bob:
There are certainly people out there (patients) who are, let us just say, less than honorable, who
conjure up spurious accusations against doctors and medical entities (and other businesses and
individuals as well) simply for the purpose of extracting ill-gotten funds. Of course.
I readily admit that... after all, it is quite obvious.
Will you agree there is also a certain percentage of doctors (and medical entities) out there who
are, let us again say, less than honorable, who only focus on the money (and other fleshly vices, I
suppose), who cut corners and do not have the patient's best interest at heart?
Best regards.
Will
(It seems you are in the majority, which incl. the 'good guys'.)
"Robert A. Fink, M. D." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (yelxol) wrote:
>
> >To get an action into a courtroom can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, years of a person's
> >life, hours and hours of depositions, incredible and unimaginable stress to the person and their
> >family, and this is only a short list. So... I respectfully disagree, doc. Best regards. Will -
> >whose been there.
>
>
> Partially true, but no cigar. There are people out there who file lawsuits for recreational
> purposes. One sued me 20 years ago for prescribing epilepsy medication while he was in the
> hospital on a psychiatric hold (for assaulting his neighbor). He accused me of "poisoning" him and
> "false imprisonment" because the state held him for 72 hours for psychiatric observation.
>
> He forced my malpractice carrier to spend money for a defense lawyer and for that lawyer to appear
> at three different hearings when this nutcase appealed the dismissal of the case all the way to
> the California Supreme Court.
>
> Some states have "panels" which "certify" suits for merit, but many of those panels are nothing
> more than rubber stamps and the suits can proceed even in the absence of a certificate of merit.
>
> I have been there also.....
>
>
> Best,
>
> Bob
>
>
> Robert A. Fink, M.D., FACS, P. C. 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, California 94704-2636 USA
>
>
> Telephone: 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557 <http://www.rafink.com>
>
> "Ex Tristitia Virtus"
>
> --------------------------------------
> NOTE: The above message is not to be considered as "medical advice". Medical advice can be given
> only after a "hands-on" examination of the patient by a physician.
>
> ========================================
There are certainly people out there (patients) who are, let us just say, less than honorable, who
conjure up spurious accusations against doctors and medical entities (and other businesses and
individuals as well) simply for the purpose of extracting ill-gotten funds. Of course.
I readily admit that... after all, it is quite obvious.
Will you agree there is also a certain percentage of doctors (and medical entities) out there who
are, let us again say, less than honorable, who only focus on the money (and other fleshly vices, I
suppose), who cut corners and do not have the patient's best interest at heart?
Best regards.
Will
(It seems you are in the majority, which incl. the 'good guys'.)
"Robert A. Fink, M. D." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (yelxol) wrote:
>
> >To get an action into a courtroom can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, years of a person's
> >life, hours and hours of depositions, incredible and unimaginable stress to the person and their
> >family, and this is only a short list. So... I respectfully disagree, doc. Best regards. Will -
> >whose been there.
>
>
> Partially true, but no cigar. There are people out there who file lawsuits for recreational
> purposes. One sued me 20 years ago for prescribing epilepsy medication while he was in the
> hospital on a psychiatric hold (for assaulting his neighbor). He accused me of "poisoning" him and
> "false imprisonment" because the state held him for 72 hours for psychiatric observation.
>
> He forced my malpractice carrier to spend money for a defense lawyer and for that lawyer to appear
> at three different hearings when this nutcase appealed the dismissal of the case all the way to
> the California Supreme Court.
>
> Some states have "panels" which "certify" suits for merit, but many of those panels are nothing
> more than rubber stamps and the suits can proceed even in the absence of a certificate of merit.
>
> I have been there also.....
>
>
> Best,
>
> Bob
>
>
> Robert A. Fink, M.D., FACS, P. C. 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, California 94704-2636 USA
>
>
> Telephone: 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557 <http://www.rafink.com>
>
> "Ex Tristitia Virtus"
>
> --------------------------------------
> NOTE: The above message is not to be considered as "medical advice". Medical advice can be given
> only after a "hands-on" examination of the patient by a physician.
>
> ========================================
K
Kurt Ullman
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (yelxol) wrote:
>Will you agree there is also a certain percentage of doctors (and medical entities) out there who
>are, let us again say, less than honorable, who only focus on the money (and other fleshly vices, I
>suppose), who cut corners and do not have the patient's best interest at heart?
>
Speaking only for myself, that goes w/o saying. However, suits are very lousy way to make that
distinction. I think that is all the Docs were trying to say.
--
Any ideas expressed on this account should not be taken as
representing Mr. Ullman's own, for indeed he has none. If anyone
objects to any statements he makes, he is quite prepared not only to
retract them, but also to vehemently deny under oath that he made
them in the first place.
[email protected] (yelxol) wrote:
>Will you agree there is also a certain percentage of doctors (and medical entities) out there who
>are, let us again say, less than honorable, who only focus on the money (and other fleshly vices, I
>suppose), who cut corners and do not have the patient's best interest at heart?
>
Speaking only for myself, that goes w/o saying. However, suits are very lousy way to make that
distinction. I think that is all the Docs were trying to say.
--
Any ideas expressed on this account should not be taken as
representing Mr. Ullman's own, for indeed he has none. If anyone
objects to any statements he makes, he is quite prepared not only to
retract them, but also to vehemently deny under oath that he made
them in the first place.
T
Tom Burns
Guest
Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (yelxol) wrote:
>
>
>>Will you agree there is also a certain percentage of doctors (and medical entities) out there who
>>are, let us again say, less than honorable, who only focus on the money (and other fleshly vices,
>>I suppose), who cut corners and do not have the patient's best interest at heart?
>>
>
> Speaking only for myself, that goes w/o saying. However, suits are very lousy way to make
> that distinction. I think that is all the Docs were trying to say.
>
> --
> Any ideas expressed on this account should not be taken as representing Mr. Ullman's own, for
> indeed he has none. If anyone objects to any statements he makes, he is quite prepared not
> only to retract them, but also to vehemently deny under oath that he made them in the first
> place.
I believe there is a registry in the US, available to MD's only, which allows the doctor to check to
see if a potential new patient has a history or pattern or changing doctors a lot then suing them.
Maybe THIS source could tell you if and where there is information the other way round.
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (yelxol) wrote:
>
>
>>Will you agree there is also a certain percentage of doctors (and medical entities) out there who
>>are, let us again say, less than honorable, who only focus on the money (and other fleshly vices,
>>I suppose), who cut corners and do not have the patient's best interest at heart?
>>
>
> Speaking only for myself, that goes w/o saying. However, suits are very lousy way to make
> that distinction. I think that is all the Docs were trying to say.
>
> --
> Any ideas expressed on this account should not be taken as representing Mr. Ullman's own, for
> indeed he has none. If anyone objects to any statements he makes, he is quite prepared not
> only to retract them, but also to vehemently deny under oath that he made them in the first
> place.
I believe there is a registry in the US, available to MD's only, which allows the doctor to check to
see if a potential new patient has a history or pattern or changing doctors a lot then suing them.
Maybe THIS source could tell you if and where there is information the other way round.
Y
Yelxol
Guest
Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (yelxol) wrote:
>
> > Dr. Fink: What you say is not totally correct. For example, you say that "Anyone can file a suit
> > over anything." In most states the 'potential' plaintiff must first convince an attorney
> > that their complaint is credible. And do not assume this step to be an easy one. This is
> > not, by any means, the same as a rear end collision, filed by some ambulance chaser.
>
> Not entirely true. It depends on the state in which the suit is brought and the tendency of juries
> in that state, as well as the intestinal fortitude of the hospitals to go to court. I've witnessed
> some lawsuits over some pretty frivolous things. They all lost, but they all made it to court.
>
>
> > As you know, most med mal actions are filed on a contingency basis, and if the attorney - most
> > often along with other partners and medical associates - isn't totally convinced of the
> > feasible of a successful suit, s/he will not file.
>
> On the other hand, if the attorney thinks he can get a doctor, hospital, or the malpractice
> insurance company to settle, rather than going through the expense of a jury trial, he may well do
> so. It's called going after the low-lying fruit.
Do you have any references at all to the frequency of these occurances? I cannot imagine that this
hardly ever happens, if at all -- unless there is a potentially 'really bad' situation. In such a
case, it would be to the doctor's or medical facility's advantage to 'settle out'.
> > If the person clears this hurdle, (in most states) their claim must then be sanctioned by a
> > qualified physician.
>
> Oh, please. This part is rarely a problem. There are a bunch of physicians who will attest to the
> validity of almost any lawsuit--for a fee of course. They're usually the same physicians who later
> make tons of money testifying as expert witnesses if the case goes to trial.
Can you name a few of these less than honorable physicians?
> > In addition, medical experts must be located, convinced and paid (in advance). And, believe
> > me, they are not cheap.
>
> This much is true, although all it usually takes to convince them is to pay them enough.
But think this through. If a person doesn't have a valid claim, why would they 'lay down the money'
to the tune - usually - of tens of thousands of dollars. And remember, they (the potential plaintiff
or the informed lawyer) must be prepared to pay for plane fares, hotel expenses, etc. And this incl.
the depositions that will occur for a cpl of years even before the trial begins.
I think it would be a good thing if all of the details of this entire exercise were exposed to the
public. It is not, apparently, as everyone thinks.
>
> > Then come the costs of depositions, travel, etc, etc, etc.
>
> Again, true, if the suit ever gets to that point.
Right. Which includes dismissal by the judge on summary judgment, all the way up to the day before
the trial is to begin... thereby breaking the plaintiff or the attorney (whoever is paying the
bills) and 'teaching them a lesson' not soon forgotten... which is not a rare occurance, by the way.
(sorry for the bad grammer. hope you followed that. long day.)
>
> > To get an action into a courtroom can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, years of a
> > person's life, hours and hours of depositions, incredible and unimaginable stress to the
> > person and their family, and this is only a short list.
>
> Yes, but that really misses the point. The goal of such lawsuits is usually not to get to the
> courtroom.
Are you sure about this? If it is a meaningful action, that is exactly the goal.
> In fact, if such a suit goes to the courtroom, the plaintiff will lose more often than not.
And why do you think that is the case?
> The goal is to intimidate the doctor or his malpractice insurance company into settling to "make
> it go away."
You mean like Michael Jackson? Or hundreds of other guilty parties? Sorry, you brought it up.
> A malpractice suit is a traumatic event to most doctors. Most of them lose their will to fight
> rather quickly and are more than willing to settle, rather than face the hostile questioning that
> will happen at a deposition or, worse yet, to face the nasty
And this doesn't apply to the patient... who has already gone through a trial of their own
(medically, that is).
I assure you that I find those who file frivolous lawsuits against doctors (or any other person or
entity) the scum of the earth, and they should be horse whipped, keel hauled or ???
We both may agree on that.
Will
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (yelxol) wrote:
>
> > Dr. Fink: What you say is not totally correct. For example, you say that "Anyone can file a suit
> > over anything." In most states the 'potential' plaintiff must first convince an attorney
> > that their complaint is credible. And do not assume this step to be an easy one. This is
> > not, by any means, the same as a rear end collision, filed by some ambulance chaser.
>
> Not entirely true. It depends on the state in which the suit is brought and the tendency of juries
> in that state, as well as the intestinal fortitude of the hospitals to go to court. I've witnessed
> some lawsuits over some pretty frivolous things. They all lost, but they all made it to court.
>
>
> > As you know, most med mal actions are filed on a contingency basis, and if the attorney - most
> > often along with other partners and medical associates - isn't totally convinced of the
> > feasible of a successful suit, s/he will not file.
>
> On the other hand, if the attorney thinks he can get a doctor, hospital, or the malpractice
> insurance company to settle, rather than going through the expense of a jury trial, he may well do
> so. It's called going after the low-lying fruit.
Do you have any references at all to the frequency of these occurances? I cannot imagine that this
hardly ever happens, if at all -- unless there is a potentially 'really bad' situation. In such a
case, it would be to the doctor's or medical facility's advantage to 'settle out'.
> > If the person clears this hurdle, (in most states) their claim must then be sanctioned by a
> > qualified physician.
>
> Oh, please. This part is rarely a problem. There are a bunch of physicians who will attest to the
> validity of almost any lawsuit--for a fee of course. They're usually the same physicians who later
> make tons of money testifying as expert witnesses if the case goes to trial.
Can you name a few of these less than honorable physicians?
> > In addition, medical experts must be located, convinced and paid (in advance). And, believe
> > me, they are not cheap.
>
> This much is true, although all it usually takes to convince them is to pay them enough.
But think this through. If a person doesn't have a valid claim, why would they 'lay down the money'
to the tune - usually - of tens of thousands of dollars. And remember, they (the potential plaintiff
or the informed lawyer) must be prepared to pay for plane fares, hotel expenses, etc. And this incl.
the depositions that will occur for a cpl of years even before the trial begins.
I think it would be a good thing if all of the details of this entire exercise were exposed to the
public. It is not, apparently, as everyone thinks.
>
> > Then come the costs of depositions, travel, etc, etc, etc.
>
> Again, true, if the suit ever gets to that point.
Right. Which includes dismissal by the judge on summary judgment, all the way up to the day before
the trial is to begin... thereby breaking the plaintiff or the attorney (whoever is paying the
bills) and 'teaching them a lesson' not soon forgotten... which is not a rare occurance, by the way.
(sorry for the bad grammer. hope you followed that. long day.)
>
> > To get an action into a courtroom can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, years of a
> > person's life, hours and hours of depositions, incredible and unimaginable stress to the
> > person and their family, and this is only a short list.
>
> Yes, but that really misses the point. The goal of such lawsuits is usually not to get to the
> courtroom.
Are you sure about this? If it is a meaningful action, that is exactly the goal.
> In fact, if such a suit goes to the courtroom, the plaintiff will lose more often than not.
And why do you think that is the case?
> The goal is to intimidate the doctor or his malpractice insurance company into settling to "make
> it go away."
You mean like Michael Jackson? Or hundreds of other guilty parties? Sorry, you brought it up.
> A malpractice suit is a traumatic event to most doctors. Most of them lose their will to fight
> rather quickly and are more than willing to settle, rather than face the hostile questioning that
> will happen at a deposition or, worse yet, to face the nasty
And this doesn't apply to the patient... who has already gone through a trial of their own
(medically, that is).
I assure you that I find those who file frivolous lawsuits against doctors (or any other person or
entity) the scum of the earth, and they should be horse whipped, keel hauled or ???
We both may agree on that.
Will
R
Robert A. Fink
Guest
[email protected] (yelxol) wrote:
>Will you agree there is also a certain percentage of doctors (and medical entities) out there who
>are, let us again say, less than honorable, who only focus on the money (and other fleshly vices, I
>suppose), who cut corners and do not have the patient's best interest at heart?
Agreed.
Best,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M.D., FACS, P. C. 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, California 94704-2636 USA
Telephone: 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557 <http://www.rafink.com>
"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
--------------------------------------
NOTE: The above message is not to be considered as "medical advice". Medical advice can be given
only after a "hands-on" examination of the patient by a physician.
========================================
>Will you agree there is also a certain percentage of doctors (and medical entities) out there who
>are, let us again say, less than honorable, who only focus on the money (and other fleshly vices, I
>suppose), who cut corners and do not have the patient's best interest at heart?
Agreed.
Best,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M.D., FACS, P. C. 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, California 94704-2636 USA
Telephone: 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557 <http://www.rafink.com>
"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
--------------------------------------
NOTE: The above message is not to be considered as "medical advice". Medical advice can be given
only after a "hands-on" examination of the patient by a physician.
========================================
C
Carey Gregory
Guest
[email protected] (yelxol) wrote:
>Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<orac-
>[email protected]>...
>>
>> On the other hand, if the attorney thinks he can get a doctor, hospital, or the malpractice
>> insurance company to settle, rather than going through the expense of a jury trial, he may well
>> do so. It's called going after the low-lying fruit.
>
>Do you have any references at all to the frequency of these occurances? I cannot imagine that this
>hardly ever happens, if at all -- unless there is a potentially 'really bad' situation. In such a
>case, it would be to the doctor's or medical facility's advantage to 'settle out'.
I have no references, and frankly I'm not going to bother looking for them because I'm surprised
anyone doubts this is common. Suing with the sole objective of a settlement is a very common
strategy, and not just in medicine. The unfortunate reality is that paying off a settlement is often
cheaper than defeating an obviously groundless lawsuit. I was the victim of such a suit many years
ago, and had to pay to beat it out of my own pocket because it was clear my insurance company was
going to settle even though they knew it was total BS. (They told me exactly that.)
>> This much is true, although all it usually takes to convince them is to pay them enough.
>
>But think this through. If a person doesn't have a valid claim, why would they 'lay down the money'
>to the tune - usually - of tens of thousands of dollars. And remember, they (the potential
>plaintiff or the informed lawyer) must be prepared to pay for plane fares, hotel expenses, etc. And
>this incl. the depositions that will occur for a cpl of years even before the trial begins.
Their gamble is they won't have to pay all these things. The whole strategy is to offer a settlement
that's less than the cost of going to trial which, as you point out, is very expensive. Go slip and
fall in any department store and pretend to injure your back. Now sue them and offer to settle for
$10K. Fact is, they'll probably take the offer because simply preparing for trial will cost them
more than $10K.
>Right. Which includes dismissal by the judge on summary judgment, all the way up to the day
>before the trial is to begin... thereby breaking the plaintiff or the attorney (whoever is
>paying the bills) and 'teaching them a lesson' not soon forgotten... which is not a rare
>occurance, by the way.
I think it is a rare occurrence.
>> Yes, but that really misses the point. The goal of such lawsuits is usually not to get to the
>> courtroom.
>
>Are you sure about this? If it is a meaningful action, that is exactly the goal.
The point is, it's *not* a meaningful action. It's extortion via the legal system and it happens
every day.
>I assure you that I find those who file frivolous lawsuits against doctors (or any other person or
>entity) the scum of the earth, and they should be horse whipped, keel hauled or ???
>
>We both may agree on that.
Yeah, we probably all agree, but I think you vastly underestimate how common this is.
>Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<orac-
>[email protected]>...
>>
>> On the other hand, if the attorney thinks he can get a doctor, hospital, or the malpractice
>> insurance company to settle, rather than going through the expense of a jury trial, he may well
>> do so. It's called going after the low-lying fruit.
>
>Do you have any references at all to the frequency of these occurances? I cannot imagine that this
>hardly ever happens, if at all -- unless there is a potentially 'really bad' situation. In such a
>case, it would be to the doctor's or medical facility's advantage to 'settle out'.
I have no references, and frankly I'm not going to bother looking for them because I'm surprised
anyone doubts this is common. Suing with the sole objective of a settlement is a very common
strategy, and not just in medicine. The unfortunate reality is that paying off a settlement is often
cheaper than defeating an obviously groundless lawsuit. I was the victim of such a suit many years
ago, and had to pay to beat it out of my own pocket because it was clear my insurance company was
going to settle even though they knew it was total BS. (They told me exactly that.)
>> This much is true, although all it usually takes to convince them is to pay them enough.
>
>But think this through. If a person doesn't have a valid claim, why would they 'lay down the money'
>to the tune - usually - of tens of thousands of dollars. And remember, they (the potential
>plaintiff or the informed lawyer) must be prepared to pay for plane fares, hotel expenses, etc. And
>this incl. the depositions that will occur for a cpl of years even before the trial begins.
Their gamble is they won't have to pay all these things. The whole strategy is to offer a settlement
that's less than the cost of going to trial which, as you point out, is very expensive. Go slip and
fall in any department store and pretend to injure your back. Now sue them and offer to settle for
$10K. Fact is, they'll probably take the offer because simply preparing for trial will cost them
more than $10K.
>Right. Which includes dismissal by the judge on summary judgment, all the way up to the day
>before the trial is to begin... thereby breaking the plaintiff or the attorney (whoever is
>paying the bills) and 'teaching them a lesson' not soon forgotten... which is not a rare
>occurance, by the way.
I think it is a rare occurrence.
>> Yes, but that really misses the point. The goal of such lawsuits is usually not to get to the
>> courtroom.
>
>Are you sure about this? If it is a meaningful action, that is exactly the goal.
The point is, it's *not* a meaningful action. It's extortion via the legal system and it happens
every day.
>I assure you that I find those who file frivolous lawsuits against doctors (or any other person or
>entity) the scum of the earth, and they should be horse whipped, keel hauled or ???
>
>We both may agree on that.
Yeah, we probably all agree, but I think you vastly underestimate how common this is.
O
Orac
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (yelxol) wrote:
> Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<orac-
> [email protected]>...
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (yelxol)
> > wrote:
> > > If the person clears this hurdle, (in most states) their claim must then be sanctioned by a
> > > qualified physician.
> >
> > Oh, please. This part is rarely a problem. There are a bunch of physicians who will attest to
> > the validity of almost any lawsuit--for a fee of course. They're usually the same physicians who
> > later make tons of money testifying as expert witnesses if the case goes to trial.
>
> Can you name a few of these less than honorable physicians?
Oh, come on now. Some of these "malpractice expert witnesses" run their own websites. There are
companies that advertise for their services. They're not hard to find.
Here's one place to start:
http://www.expertwitness.com
There are many more such sites, and at least a few sites run by the doctors themselves.
> > > In addition, medical experts must be located, convinced and paid (in advance). And, believe
> > > me, they are not cheap.
> >
> > This much is true, although all it usually takes to convince them is to pay them enough.
>
> But think this through. If a person doesn't have a valid claim, why would they 'lay down the
> money' to the tune - usually - of tens of thousands of dollars. And remember, they (the potential
> plaintiff or the informed lawyer) must be prepared to pay for plane fares, hotel expenses, etc.
> And this incl. the depositions that will occur for a cpl of years even before the trial begins.
The point is, the plaintiff usually doesn't pay these upfront expenses. The lawfirm accepting the
case on contingency does. All it takes is one or two big payouts to cover these expenses for all
the smaller losing cases, along with a hefty profit. The expenses for these lawsuits that lose are
just the cost of doing business to get the ones that win. True, even a contingency lawyer won't
take a case that he clearly has no chance of winning, but they will take on somewhat risky cases on
this basis.
> I think it would be a good thing if all of the details of this entire exercise were exposed to the
> public. It is not, apparently, as everyone thinks.
Not a bad idea, but it'll never happen.
> > > Then come the costs of depositions, travel, etc, etc, etc.
> >
> > Again, true, if the suit ever gets to that point.
>
> Right. Which includes dismissal by the judge on summary judgment, all the way up to the day
> before the trial is to begin... thereby breaking the plaintiff or the attorney (whoever is paying
> the bills) and 'teaching them a lesson' not soon forgotten... which is not a rare occurance, by
> the way.
Yes, but the entire point is NOT to make it to court, to get a settlement before the case ever goes
to court. If the case makes it to court, the plaintiff has a good chance of losing in most
malpractice cases.
> (sorry for the bad grammer. hope you followed that. long day.)
> >
> > > To get an action into a courtroom can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, years of a
> > > person's life, hours and hours of depositions, incredible and unimaginable stress to the
> > > person and their family, and this is only a short list.
> >
> > Yes, but that really misses the point. The goal of such lawsuits is usually not to get to the
> > courtroom.
>
> Are you sure about this?
Yes. Quite sure. It's not as if this isn't a tactic limited to malpractice cases. It's used in *all*
areas of civil tort law. Lawyers know that defending against a lawsuit is expensive and time-
consuming. They know that even relatively well-off people often don't have the resources to do it
and that some companies will do a cost-benefit analysis and decide it makes more sense to settle.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
>If it is a meaningful action, that is exactly the goal.
Not necessarily. Indeed, if it is a meaningful action with legal merit, there is a better chance of
its successfully getting to court and winning, leading to a better chance that the defendant will
decide to settle rather than taking the chance of losing and paying a lot more.
> > In fact, if such a suit goes to the courtroom, the plaintiff will lose more often than not.
>
> And why do you think that is the case?
I don't just think that is the case. I know that is the case. I could direct you to a recent New
England Journal of Medicine article, among others, to point out that the rates rates of plaintiff
victory when malpractice suits go to court is much less than 50%. It's more like 10-40%, depending
on the state and jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, the articles didn't address the settlement rate.
> > The goal is to intimidate the doctor or his malpractice insurance company into settling to "make
> > it go away."
>
> You mean like Michael Jackson? Or hundreds of other guilty parties?
Bad analogy. Michael Jackson was accused of a crime and his settlement of the lawsuit by one of his
alleged victims in the early 1990's was more of a payoff to prevent the child from testifying at a
subsequent criminal trial. Believe it or not, except for uncommon exceptions, alpractice is not a
crime. It is a civil matter for the courts to compensate those who are the victims of malpractice.
Doctors are generally not thrown in jail for malpractice--unlike Michael Jackson, who recently WAS
thrown in jail for allegedly molesting young boys.
> Sorry, you brought it up.
And easily disposed of it. (Of course, you made it easy by bringing up such a bad analogy. A better
analogy would have been harder to dispose of.)
> > A malpractice suit is a traumatic event to most doctors. Most of them lose their will to fight
> > rather quickly and are more than willing to settle, rather than face the hostile questioning
> > that will happen at a deposition or, worse yet, to face the nasty
>
> And this doesn't apply to the patient... who has already gone through a trial of their own
> (medically, that is).
I never said it wasn't. The point, however, is that trial lawyers know that many doctors tend to
take on an attitude of "let's make this go away," even doctors who know they've done nothing outside
the standard of care. Most doctors are out of their element in the legal system.
> I assure you that I find those who file frivolous lawsuits against doctors (or any other person or
> entity) the scum of the earth, and they should be horse whipped, keel hauled or ???
>
> We both may agree on that.
True enough.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
[email protected] (yelxol) wrote:
> Orac <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<orac-
> [email protected]>...
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (yelxol)
> > wrote:
> > > If the person clears this hurdle, (in most states) their claim must then be sanctioned by a
> > > qualified physician.
> >
> > Oh, please. This part is rarely a problem. There are a bunch of physicians who will attest to
> > the validity of almost any lawsuit--for a fee of course. They're usually the same physicians who
> > later make tons of money testifying as expert witnesses if the case goes to trial.
>
> Can you name a few of these less than honorable physicians?
Oh, come on now. Some of these "malpractice expert witnesses" run their own websites. There are
companies that advertise for their services. They're not hard to find.
Here's one place to start:
http://www.expertwitness.com
There are many more such sites, and at least a few sites run by the doctors themselves.
> > > In addition, medical experts must be located, convinced and paid (in advance). And, believe
> > > me, they are not cheap.
> >
> > This much is true, although all it usually takes to convince them is to pay them enough.
>
> But think this through. If a person doesn't have a valid claim, why would they 'lay down the
> money' to the tune - usually - of tens of thousands of dollars. And remember, they (the potential
> plaintiff or the informed lawyer) must be prepared to pay for plane fares, hotel expenses, etc.
> And this incl. the depositions that will occur for a cpl of years even before the trial begins.
The point is, the plaintiff usually doesn't pay these upfront expenses. The lawfirm accepting the
case on contingency does. All it takes is one or two big payouts to cover these expenses for all
the smaller losing cases, along with a hefty profit. The expenses for these lawsuits that lose are
just the cost of doing business to get the ones that win. True, even a contingency lawyer won't
take a case that he clearly has no chance of winning, but they will take on somewhat risky cases on
this basis.
> I think it would be a good thing if all of the details of this entire exercise were exposed to the
> public. It is not, apparently, as everyone thinks.
Not a bad idea, but it'll never happen.
> > > Then come the costs of depositions, travel, etc, etc, etc.
> >
> > Again, true, if the suit ever gets to that point.
>
> Right. Which includes dismissal by the judge on summary judgment, all the way up to the day
> before the trial is to begin... thereby breaking the plaintiff or the attorney (whoever is paying
> the bills) and 'teaching them a lesson' not soon forgotten... which is not a rare occurance, by
> the way.
Yes, but the entire point is NOT to make it to court, to get a settlement before the case ever goes
to court. If the case makes it to court, the plaintiff has a good chance of losing in most
malpractice cases.
> (sorry for the bad grammer. hope you followed that. long day.)
> >
> > > To get an action into a courtroom can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, years of a
> > > person's life, hours and hours of depositions, incredible and unimaginable stress to the
> > > person and their family, and this is only a short list.
> >
> > Yes, but that really misses the point. The goal of such lawsuits is usually not to get to the
> > courtroom.
>
> Are you sure about this?
Yes. Quite sure. It's not as if this isn't a tactic limited to malpractice cases. It's used in *all*
areas of civil tort law. Lawyers know that defending against a lawsuit is expensive and time-
consuming. They know that even relatively well-off people often don't have the resources to do it
and that some companies will do a cost-benefit analysis and decide it makes more sense to settle.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
>If it is a meaningful action, that is exactly the goal.
Not necessarily. Indeed, if it is a meaningful action with legal merit, there is a better chance of
its successfully getting to court and winning, leading to a better chance that the defendant will
decide to settle rather than taking the chance of losing and paying a lot more.
> > In fact, if such a suit goes to the courtroom, the plaintiff will lose more often than not.
>
> And why do you think that is the case?
I don't just think that is the case. I know that is the case. I could direct you to a recent New
England Journal of Medicine article, among others, to point out that the rates rates of plaintiff
victory when malpractice suits go to court is much less than 50%. It's more like 10-40%, depending
on the state and jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, the articles didn't address the settlement rate.
> > The goal is to intimidate the doctor or his malpractice insurance company into settling to "make
> > it go away."
>
> You mean like Michael Jackson? Or hundreds of other guilty parties?
Bad analogy. Michael Jackson was accused of a crime and his settlement of the lawsuit by one of his
alleged victims in the early 1990's was more of a payoff to prevent the child from testifying at a
subsequent criminal trial. Believe it or not, except for uncommon exceptions, alpractice is not a
crime. It is a civil matter for the courts to compensate those who are the victims of malpractice.
Doctors are generally not thrown in jail for malpractice--unlike Michael Jackson, who recently WAS
thrown in jail for allegedly molesting young boys.
> Sorry, you brought it up.
And easily disposed of it. (Of course, you made it easy by bringing up such a bad analogy. A better
analogy would have been harder to dispose of.)
> > A malpractice suit is a traumatic event to most doctors. Most of them lose their will to fight
> > rather quickly and are more than willing to settle, rather than face the hostile questioning
> > that will happen at a deposition or, worse yet, to face the nasty
>
> And this doesn't apply to the patient... who has already gone through a trial of their own
> (medically, that is).
I never said it wasn't. The point, however, is that trial lawyers know that many doctors tend to
take on an attitude of "let's make this go away," even doctors who know they've done nothing outside
the standard of care. Most doctors are out of their element in the legal system.
> I assure you that I find those who file frivolous lawsuits against doctors (or any other person or
> entity) the scum of the earth, and they should be horse whipped, keel hauled or ???
>
> We both may agree on that.
True enough.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"