Comments on: Michael Woods Case Settles

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:31:52 +0000

Supremacy Claus, would the same go for a lawyer who defends a case where there is clear malpractice?

In most states, doctors have to sign off on a malpractice claim too. Would you sue them too?

But I agree with you: loser pays is a well intentioned idea that practically does not work for either side.

By: Supremacy Claus

Supremacy Claus — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:58:26 +0000

Florida enacted loser pays. It increased the pressure to settle on the innocent defendant. After a few years, doctors asked that it be repealed.

I propose an alternative. A statute should end the privity obstacle to a legal malpractice lawsuit against the lawyer by the adverser third party. The filing of a weak case is legal malpractice. A plaintiff lawyer expert would certify that the legal malpractice claim has merit, to avoid retaliatory or harassing lawsuits against the lawyer.

The judge’s immunity is ridiculous and unjust as well. These biased incompetents should be deterred to the fullest extent of a new law making them fully responsible for any injury in their court from their carelessness.

The victim of lawsuit abuse should be made whole from the insurance policies of the careless lawyer and careless judge.

By: December 11 roundup

December 11 roundup — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:13:27 +0000

[...] A Rhode Island hospital settles a med mal case [White Coat] [...]

By: Fyrdoc

Fyrdoc — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:02:07 +0000

Duck,

It’s just not as much fun guessing what “he-who-shall-not-be-named” would say.

Fyr

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:28:00 +0000

I’m sure that Matt would say that if you couldn’t determine the proper care then you OBVIOUSLY weren’t a good enough doctor and DESERVE to be sued into oblivion. After all, it’s all about providing the best medical care to the patients, right Matt? We can’t have any bad nasty incompetent indecisive doctors out there, gotta sue sue SUE and winnow out the bad ones!

By: Fyrdoc

Fyrdoc — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:36:21 +0000

“Keep pitching those red herrings and fact distortions, though. Maybe some day someone will believe you.”

WC – If he is to be believed, Matt is a practicing attorney. As such, red herrings and fact distortions are his stock in trade. He has nothing else to offer if the facts don’t suit his side (and in this case they don’t).

By: Sarah

Sarah — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:57:07 +0000

I think that from an EM physician’s perspective, the most frustrating thing is to find yourself in a position where a case could go two ways and see yourself potentially getting sued and losing either way. For example, you have an older gentleman come in complaining of chest pain but he mentions that it radiates through to his back. Maybe a heart attack but could be a dissection. Your options include getting a CT chest, but if has renal failure or he develops an ST elevation MI in the near future and a cath is delayed due to the dye load, you could get sued for that. You could, knowing that dissection is substantially less likely than ACS, check bilateral upper extremity blood pressures, check pulses in the feet, and treat with heparin. But you could miss a dissection that still had a substantial true lumen that was maintaining pulses and then give heparin, worsen the dissection, and get sued for that.

You might have great training, plenty of time to reassess the patient and consider the best management, the best intentions, and be at an institution that has every resource imaginable. But if the right patient with the right family comes along, you can still get dragged through a trial for several years. And you still might lose. It’s one of the worst things about our job.

By: WhiteCoat

WhiteCoat — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:58:30 +0000

Hmmm.
“Shopping around” versus “requesting that someone provide a scientific basis for their opinion”.
Big difference.
Keep pitching those red herrings and fact distortions, though. Maybe some day someone will believe you.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:46:40 +0000

Wait, aren’t you the guy who shopped around for an expert until you found one that agreed with you in your own case?

By: WhiteCoat

WhiteCoat — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:15:58 +0000

Plaintiff attorneys have a large incentive to take a case in which there are large damages, find a biased expert’s opinion, see if they can get health care providers to make statements against their interests, then pick a jury in which they can invoke emotion about the plaintiff’s injuries to see if they can hit the jackpot.
The incentive is to play poker with the other side to try to convince them you have a multimillion dollar case and then extract a settlement of several hundred thousand dollars as a compromise.

When medical organizations go after rogue experts for testifying about inappropriate standards of care, then plaintiff attorneys cry “witness intimidation” and file lawsuits against the organizations.