Caps on medical malpractice?

[speyfly]

The current administration is using their clout to push for caps on medical malpractice. I for one would like for a jury to decide how liable the medical profession is on a case-by-case basis and just how negligent they are. I say no to caps! What say you???

I like you guys even though you use gear

[foxer]

Well, I think damages from these lawsuits is getting out of control personally. There should be some sort of cap, but I think it should be more than 250k.

The settlements should be reasonable.

[speyfly]

What is fair? Here is a link to a story about a medical mistake that cost this woman alot. I just don't think the $250K would be enough.
CLICK HERE

Nothing like millions of dollars for spilled coffee (apples and oranges here). The award should fit the crime.

[RichH]

I absolutely believe there should be a cap. I also believe in tort reform. As for the coffee suit,

http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

[speyfly]

Rich, we're talking about medical malpractice. I agree with you that there needs to be court reform legislation to handle the frivolous law suits but the insurance companies are lobbying very hard to get this through. The truth be known, the insurance industry was very flush with lots of capitol and vested heavy in to the stock markets. They lost lots of money and now are trying to make up for their stock losses by higher premiums and lawsuit caps.

[ 01-20-2003, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: speyfly ]

[24 on/ 48 off]

How about the doc who accidently amputates the wrong leg?

How much is YOUR leg worth to you?

--spud-- :smile:

[TheRogue]

Actually, there's 2 issues here. The cap they are pushing for is the part addressed by "pain and suffering". The "lost time and present income" portion is not affected.

I agree with most in saying that things have gotten way out of hand. I also agree that insanely skyrocketing malpractice insurance rates might also be more a result of the insurance industry being heavily invested in the crashing stock market......and that is their fault, not the doctors (or ours).

As for actual caps, I just don't know on this one. I know the pain and suffering to me, if I was to loose a leg due to incompetence or ignorance, would be MUCH more than 250K. However, I temper that with something like this:

A woman who had her first child by Caesarean birth became pregnant again. She was counciled by her doctor to have the second one that way as well. She refused, numerous times. The doctor documented his strong feelings concerning this, and finally convinced the woman to check into the hospital at the first sign of birthing pains. She finally made it to the hospital... several hours after the first signs. To make a long story short...there was massive internal bleeding...she barely lived, and the baby did not. Now, she is pursuing a mult-million dollar lawsuit against the doctor.

Regardless of how it turns out, the doctor and his insurance company will be forking out big $$$ to fight it, and may, in the end, simply pay her off.

That example is simplified a little, and I don't know a lot of the little details, which may be important to a jury. Unfortunately though, anytime you're dealing with a human life, and especially that of a baby, people's intelligence and common sense can go right out the window.

I don't know the answer, and like I said, I don't know if there is even a fair answer out there.

TR

24,
About $20,000 according to the state.

[ 01-20-2003, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[fish_on]

caps on health related lawsuits would = lower malpractice insurance = lower health costs. As far as a jury deciding the fair amount look at some of the tobbacco awards, about as fair as salmon allocations.

[24 on/ 48 off]

Originally posted by Keta:
24,
About $20,000 according to the state.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">...and that's just plain WRONG!

--spud-- :smile:

24,
The 40% loss of use on my leg will cost me over $400,000 in lost income ($25,000X15 years) because I will never be able to work in my trade and will be making about 1/2 of what I have made in the past. The comp company told me that it was worth $8500

[RichH]

I too am talking about medical malpractice. The link was related to the post Keta made regarding coffee.

Medical malpractice insurance is way out of control. Ob/gyn docs are some of the hardest hit. In fact, a lot of them are leaving the profession due to that very reason. Also, new docs are not coming on board due the rising costs and decreased revenues associated with being a physician.


Malpractice lawsuits are also a large part of the reason healthcare costs so much. In my opinion, Dr.s order a lot of tests simply to avoid being sued.

I wish there was a simple answer to the dilemma of mistakes being made in medicine. Unfortunately as long as humans are practicing medicine there will be errors.
That doesn't mean that I think we should accept gross negligence as part of the process and not expect some compensation. I just think, as was mentioned earlier, that the "punishment should fit the crime", so to speak. If gross negligence is proven, to the extent that the person involved is liable and possibly criminal, hang em' high. If, on the other hand, an honest mistake is made, how to deal with that is the heart of the issue in my opinion.

Can we really put a price on a leg, as was asked? I don't know.

[24 on/ 48 off]

Keta,

I sympathize for ya. You are getting the shaft.

--spud-- :smile:

My lawyer thinks that we should be able to triple it, still not enough to cover my loss. I'd give 100 times this to get all of my leg back.

[Grantspastor]

It's a tough issue! No question that frivolous lawsuits...or those driven by greed have dramatically affected the cost of medical care. I agree there has to be some provision for criminal or negligent malpractice which results in severe or debilitating injury. The problem is, the majority of medical malpractice lawsuits are filed in hopes that insurance companies will settle out of court. When I talk about greed...I am mostly thinking about lawyers.

What about this idea? If a lawyer files a malpractice suit and is UNSUCCESSFUL...in his case...then he can become liable for a counter suit? I know it it will ever happen, but seems like a good idea.

I agree with Keta. The award should fit the crime. Common sense whould prevail

[ 01-20-2003, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Grantspastor ]

[speyfly]

Everwhere you look, the little guy is getting the shaft. My heart is out to you Kita.

Thank you spey :smile:

[1pump]

What about this idea? If a lawyer files a malpractice suit and is UNSUCCESSFUL...in his case...then he can become liable for a counter suit?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">This scenario is referred to as "loser pays".
That's the way it is in many countries, especially in Europe. It reduces frivolous lawsuits, but also prevents legitimate plaintiffs from taking legal action due to the risk of being liable for the defendant's legal fees as well as their own. That can be pretty intimidating for one guy with one attorney taking on Mega Corp. and its team of Armani-clad sharks.
Caps? Great idea. Never happen. Why? Congressmen (and women) and lobbyists are predominantly lawyers. If there's one thing that will cause attorneys to hold hands and start singing "We Shall Overcome", it's the prospect of losing their meal tickets and their stranglehold on this country.

[TheRogue]

Thought I'd bring this back to the top.....

Anyone see this: Child gets wrong organs

A $250,000 cap?? Is that what a life's worth nowadays?? Granted, this is an extreme case....but.........

TR

[CATCH AND EAT]

The Rogue, I have to agree with you on this. Another vortex moment I guess. :smile: I see this way to much in autobody industry. I get folks in here right after an accident that are pretty banged up. "What do I do?" they ask. My responce is "call your attorney". Why? Because the insurance industry is not your brother or friend. They are a business that wants you to settle for as little as possible on both the auto claim and bodily injury claim. Believe me, they play dirty and they play to win.

On the other hand I do agree with KETA too. The award should fit the injury. Oregon is loosing doctors daily that cannot pay the $1,000,000 dollar a year premiums. Jurys tend to award way to high a settlement mostly due to the hatred of insurance companies. Jury's need to be more responsible when considering the awards for malpractice. Kyle is right too when he says insurance companies are over invested in faultering stocks. Now we get to pay for their stupidity and greediness.

Just for kicks my premium for my family of 5 persons went from $305 in 2001 to $780 in 2002. Right about the time the market tanked and 9/11 occured.

[Thumper]

It is easy to forget that malpractice awards are paid for by us. Yep, you and me. The OB-GYN who has to pay hundreds of thousands for his malpractice coverage each year has to pass the cost along to his patients or he goes out of business (as is now happening in several east coast states). That means your insurance cost continues to climb by double digits each year.

There is no free lunch. Jury-awarded amounts have to be limited unless you want to pay the cost of their largesse out of your own pocket.

I ran a large medical testing laboratory a few years ago. We paid a ton for malpractice insurance. Any claim, no matter how frivolous, would be instantly settled by our carrier for $50,000. Instantly. It would cost them more than that to litigate the issue. And we had no say in the matter. The premiums continued to climb, year after year. Scary.

There is, however, a flip side to this for the insurance companies. The best of all situations for them is a huge claim and a small settlement. They book the full claim against earnings for the year (thereby minimizing taxes until the claim is settled), then pay the small settlement years later and keep the earnings they made on the reserved potential loss.

It is a complex world.

[ 02-19-2003, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[speyfly]

Hey Thumper, I remember reading the stats on what % of doctors cause most of the malpractice suits. It was something like 5% caused the majority of the lawsuit awards. If you would like I will find the info and post it for you.

The good ole boy protection of incompetent doctors is a major reason for the lawsuits.

[Thumper]

Spey --- Yes, I would like to read about that.

[speyfly]

Thumper, I am having a hard time finding the report on the percentages of doctors vs. lawsuits but I will find it. Here are some links to show how incompetent doctors are being protected.
HERE HERE HERE HERE HERE HERE

[Silver Hilton]

I'd much rather see reform of the trial system. The jury selection process is now extremely manipulable by the lawyers to get stupid jurors. I can get called to jury duty - I will never get selected by a plaintiff's jury, because I am educated, intelligent, and have a financial background. This means that I can plow through BS about pain and suffering, and would probably come to the conslusion that if you put scalding coffee between your thighs, you are largely responsible for getting burned.

There is now a consulting business in this country that teaches plaintiff's lawyers exactly how to select jurors who will be sympathetic to a victim's plaint. They have a precise set of pschological indictors that reliably point to people who will look unfavorably at deep pocket defendents, and who will find for them.

In addition to this practice, there is the basic distortion that many of the people who would make great jurors do their best to get out of jury duty. People with jobs that need them are onviously competent folks - we want them on the jury.

Fix this problem and leave the caps off.

[Thumper]

Thanks Spey ... No doubt about it, there is a CYA mentality among physicians.