Medical Justice is an innovative program run by Dr. Jeffrey Segal.
Basically, Medical Justice is the “big stick” doctors carry if they are sued. The service monitors the plaintiff attorneys and the plaintiff expert witnesses and will pursue counterclaims against the attorneys and/or expert witnesses when appropriate. You can read more about what the service offers here.
I have seen that lately Medical Justice is catching a lot of heat due to its anti-defamation service — a contract in which patients agree not to post defamatory statements about the physician on the internet. If the patient doesn’t sign the contract, then the contract gives the physician a chance to decide whether or not to agree to treat the patient. A couple of representative articles about the service were in USA Today and ZDNet.
Medical Justice’s idea has been called “an attack on First Amendment rights,” an “almost comical attempt to hold back the tide,” and flat out “repulsive.”
It is an “attack on First Amendment rights” when doctors want patients to sign contracts to prevent patients from making derogatory statements on the internet.
Yet no one says much when the Florida Bar thwarted a Florida Constitutional amendment limiting contingency fees by collectively forcing clients to sign a waiver of the rights afforded by Florida Constitutional amendment in order to receive legal representation.
And … when doctors created a web site listing patients who had previously sued other doctors, it was deemed “mean-spirited,” “blacklisting,” a “denial of medical care,” and caused a public uproar to the point that the web site had to be shut down.
Why the disparity?
first amendment rights? i don’t understand. the patients have a CHOICE whether or not to sign the waiver. the provider then, in turn, has a choice whether or not to treat the patient. where’s the problem?
I’d be wary of that “service” were I you — the bulk of what they “provide” is either done by your insurance carrier or is of minimal benefit.
I have no idea why a doctor would pay yet another fee to have “expert review” of plaintiff’s experts; that’s the job of your carrier-appointed defense lawyer. If your defense lawyer is a bozo and doesn’t both find you an expert and find dirt on the plaintiff’s expert, you need to raise hell with your carrier and call someone like me to get the wheels turning on bad faith and/or legal malpractice claims.
The “defamation” services are all malarkey; as far as I can tell, all they’ll do is “review” potential defamation cases. I, like most contingent fee attorneys, do that for free. You don’t need a contract to sue someone for defamation; indeed, doctors have been suing patients for defamation for centuries. There’s a famous Pennsylvania case from the 1850s where it was not defamatory to call a doctor a “two-penny bleeder” because “bleeder” was not clearly defamatory in the 1850s, it was a semi-respectable profession.
Same for their “frivolous suit” services. All they do is “review.” So do I, for free.
Maybe there’s a benefit in getting copies of their “mutual privacy” contracts but, well, if I were you, I’d have a long conversation with a defense lawyer before actually implementing that.
The issues there are no different than for, say, lawyers, who are struggling with their own “ratings” website issues. A “mutual privacy” contract is likely unenforceable as a practical matter, since you’ll either need to pay thousands to a lawyer to prosecute the action or need to convince a contingent-fee lawyer like me to sue for what a jury could likely find was $1 in damages.
Perhaps worse, personally, I would NOT like to be cross-examined in a malpractice suit about my reasons for imposing a “mutual privacy” contract on my clients. I’ll look like a jerk with something to hide.
Caveat emptor.
How much some groups clamour about “1st Amendment” rights is directly proportional to how much they stand to gain in taking the position.
People forget that the first amendment only protects speech from interference from the government. Private entities, private contract.
I don’t see why some enterprising people could compile databases of those who sue doctors, doctors with malpractice records and license restrictions/revocations. Most of the material is a matter of public record.
I think this is an outstanding idea. it should be resurected. i mean hey, if angies list is rating doctors (and I understand zagats is nnow too), then why cant we rate patients.
think about it, a website you could log into
mr x is a 50 year od so and so who is a noncompliant liar
mrs c is a 40 year old chronic drug addict, who complains of pains to get narcotics
plus wether or not they will sue. wow! this would not do me much good as I am federally compelled to see and treat everybody, but what a boon for UC and PCP offices.
Maybe we could add a list of lawyers onto that as well. then, when the come in, we could logon, and see they are malpractice atty’s. we could then do the matt thing and order everything to rule out anything they could think of, and when they or the IC complaints, we can give them a copy of some of matts defensive medicine posts.
the more I think about this the better I like it. I will spring for the domain name if somebody who can code HTML will indulge some time.
takers?
Or you could, and here’s a wacky thought, simply treat your patients with respect, rather than practicing “defensive medicine”, which you’re not sure works, and have no clue if it actually insulates you from any liability.
Studies, by physicians, show that simply being nice to your patients is the best way to reduce your exposure. But I don’t want you to lose your charming condescension. That’s worth more than all the insurance premiums you’ll ever pay!