I don’t see that as a problem, I see that as the need for the dispute resolution system.

“Second, I would be very curious to see some of the cases that med mal folks (I’ll try to be specific from here on) turn down.”

You’d probably never see them unless the client released the paperwork to you, because of attorney client privilege. The attorney can’t.

“Your third point is similar enough to the first that I don’t think it bears rehashing.”

The third point isn’t similar at all. It goes to the law firm economics, not the necessity of a physician being involved. Simply put, taking a bunch of questionable med mal cases is bad business because of the cost to pursue them.

This seems to me to be quite an assumption on your part, as you don’t know the jury, the evidence, or really any of the details of the cases you reference. Or have you read the trial transcripts?

Physicians seem to believe that jurors are all weak minded sob sisters waiting to be misled by plaintiff’s lawyers while the defense sits there like a potted plant. Yet somehow physicians win far more often at trial than they lose, even sometimes in the face of devastating injuries.

You’re right in most cases it’s unlikely to be caused by the OB-GYN’s actions. But I doubt you would say it is NEVER caused by the physician’s actions, would you? And since we don’t know the ratio of brain injury children to brain injury cases, it’s entirely possible that there are far fewer lawsuits on those cases than you’d expect. You just don’t hear about the ones that aren’t filed.

Unless you’ve got more data, I’m not sure how you can conclude that my statement isn’t borne out by the facts.

As to your idea of a schedule, if we can decide that it is worth something, I don’t believe a schedule is fairness. Is the same injury to an athlete in their prime as valuable to a 75 year old at the end of their life expectancy who is largely immobile? I think not.

This is why we have a jury, I believe. To take twelve members of society and let them make an assessment based on the facts. I don’t view a schedule promulgated by lobbyists is a better solution. Will there be verdicts on the high end? Of course. At the same time, there will be verdicts on the low end, although physicians don’t usually want to talk about those. There will be no truly perfect system where all of society says ah, yes, that’s the perfect number. There will always be someone who disagrees with the jury’s finding. Or for that matter a legislative schedule. But I would favor letting the facts of the case dictate the value, rather than whatever pressure lobbyists can bring to bear regardless of the facts.

First, you’ve proved my point for me. There are areas in medicine where people disagree. There can be good evidence for 2 different ways of doing this and thus you’ll have doctors who are willing to say “Nope, that other way is pure garbage and should never be done ever”. Don’t you see the inherent problem here? Both ways might have good evidence for doing them, but at the same time you can get others swearing that one way is quackery. Now, part of that is admittedly the huge egos that abound in medicine. But then again, part of that is inherent in what we do.

Second, I would be very curious to see some of the cases that med mal folks (I’ll try to be specific from here on) turn down.

Your third point is similar enough to the first that I don’t think it bears rehashing.

I recently read about the case in NYC where a woman won $60 million because a plastic surgeon screwed up and now her labia looks strange. How on Earth is that a reasonable pain and suffering settlement?

It sounds like we need a list of injuries and appropriate non-economic damages. A doctor does this, you get this much. I doctor does that, you get that much.