Pennsylvania hospital gets hit with $21 million verdict after woman comes to hospital with twin gestation and has “difficult delivery.” One of the twin children was born with cerebral palsy.
New Jersey hospital pays $8.5 million to settle birth-related lawsuit.
Family awarded $2 million after surgeon fails to remove both ovaries in a patient who had cancer in only one ovary. Cancer allegedly reoccurred in ovary that was left behind, killing the patient. But … the plot thickens. The second ovary was not present on autopsy.
Ohio Supreme Court rules that patients can sue physicians for emotional distress when experts determine that physician was negligent. However, the same Ohio Supreme Court held that “the vast majority of appellate decisions … have held that an attorney is not liable for emotional distress damages where the attorney’s conduct has been merely negligent.” (.pdf file)
Merely negligent doctors: Liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars in emotional distress.
Merely negligent lawyers: Meh … can’t be sued.
Why is it that courts will let us sue our way to better health care but won’t let us sue our way to better legal care?
Another challenge to the Feres Doctrine that prevents veterans and those currently enlisted in the armed services from filing medical malpractice claims against their treating physicians.
Yeah, dude, like … it makes my eyes red and it makes me eat a lot. Marijuana allergies more common than once thought. I guess that once patients stop using illegal drugs, those problems should clear up pretty quickly.
JCAHO now makes alarm fatigue a top priority this year. There were 216 deaths reported due to alarm fatigue nationwide between January 2005 and June 2010. Look for mounds of new paperwork so that doctors and nurses can document how they responded to each and every alarm to be in compliance with JCAHO’s new edicts — which will take even more time away from them being able to provide care to the patients.
Literally a “WTF” moment. President Elect of the American College of Surgeons – and the inventor of the Greenfield Filter – resigns after readers become upset when he quotes a study citing the beneficial effects of semen on the female psyche.
Another hospital closing its doors. Oak Forest Hospital in Illinois ending hospital services as Cook County “is struggling under rising medical costs, declining federal help, dependence on Illinois’ Medicaid system and patients who can’t pay their bills.” Six long term patients will have to find new homes. The cost of providing long-term care to one patient is $1,320 per day, but Medicaid only reimburses the hospital $133 per day. The hospital will be converted into a primary care center and its emergency department will be changed to an urgent care clinic.
As Washington state cuts more than $17 million from mental health budgets to save costs, clinics stop seeing the patients. Those patients don’t suddenly get better. Instead, they head to the emergency department for all that inexpensive medical care. “You will see them in the ER, you will see them incarcerated, you will see them out in the streets and the bottom line is you will see more of them in the cemetery.”
White House announces plans to tackle prescription painkiller abuse problem. President Obama’s Guess Praney scores immediately plummet and, as a result, he is now in danger of losing his job.
the correct way to tackle alarm fatigue would be to ensure that 100% of important alarms are responded to, and to have unimportant alarms not ringing in the first place.
i have no faith in jcaho’s ability to reduce background noise though… seeing as about 98% of what they do amounts to background noise.
so now nurses have to document that they responded and what action was taken every time the monitor beeps because the leads are off of the patient, for the beds that have no patient in them? sounds great.
“Merely negligent doctors: Liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars in emotional distress.
Merely negligent lawyers: Meh … can’t be sued.”
Many states require a physical injury before recovering for emotional distress. Which your insurance industry backers support wholeheartedly.
“Why is it that courts will let us sue our way to better health care but won’t let us sue our way to better legal care?”
They’re not preventing you from “suing your way to better legal care” – if you’ll read the case you linked, you certainly can. Don’t just post the links the lobbyists send you – READ them. You might learn something.
Obviously we’re not doing a good job suing our way to better healthcare, though. Only 2-3% of the malpractice in this country ever sees a claim file! And healthcare costs keep rising, physicians keep wanting more money, etc.
But hey, don’t let the truth get in the way of you parroting another lobbyist line. It’s about all you got left.
You’re trying to obfuscate your way through this, Matt.
I missed it in the case. Where exactly does the opinion state that clients are allowed to sue attorneys for emotional distress due to negligence?
Once you have conceded that point, then you can explain to me the following:
Why is it that courts allow plaintiffs to recover for emotional distress against physicians, but courts “screw the injured” by refusing to allow plaintiffs to recover for emotional distress against attorneys?
I’m so waiting for an articulate and factually-based explanation.
Want to back up your “2-3%” quote with some actual statistics? Or are you just one of those John Kyl “not intended to be a factual statement” kind of guy?
But assuming arguendo that the number of filed malpractice claims is small compared to the number of instances of malpractice, would the reason that only a small percentage of legitimate malpractice cases are actually filed have anything to do with the fact that the attorneys won’t file malpractice cases unless there are hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages? Hmmmmmmm?
The cases are too expensive to file.
It will cost me $100,000 to bring a case to trial.
Only have a couple of weeks of lost wages? How can any respectable attorney make a yacht payment with 33% of *those* damages?
Because most people are more insightful than your innuendos give them credit for … they can easily see that the low number of legitimate malpractice claims filed are actually attorneys who “screw the injured” because there aren’t enough damages to make it worth the attorneys’ collective efforts. Then those same attorneys try to make people believe that it is the “evil” doctors who maliciously stack the deck against the patients they’re trying to help by only allowing a small percentage of claims to get to court.
Shame on you.
By the way, what percentage of attorneys get away with legal malpractice because no attorney is willing to file the legal malpractice claim?
Here’s a cite to a recent Ohio Supreme Court ruling on the subject of emotional distress claims.
http://www.consumerclassactionsmasstorts.com/2010/07/articles/nuisance/ohio-supremes-hold-that-annoyance-and-discomfort-damages-for-a-nuisance-claim-require-physical-discomfort/
I was wrong – they do allow emotional distress claims without a physical injury, but:
“Notably, a person can pursue emotional distress damages in Ohio without proving the manifestation of a physical injury, but the distress must be severe and debilitating and does not encompass mere upset or hurt feelings.”
Key phrase …. “I was wrong” a;gljkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
Excuse me. I briefly fainted and my face hit the keyboard.
It happens. Not to you, of course.
Interesting that rather than take the opportunity to learn something you were clearly uniformed about, and discuss that point, you posted the above.
Sad, really. Especially since I posted this earlier: ” (I’m talking in generalities because some states don’t require the physical injury component).”
There are far more attorneys than physicians, yet there are far fewer legal malpractice cases. Why?
“Where exactly does the opinion state that clients are allowed to sue attorneys for emotional distress due to negligence?”
It doesn’t. And I’m not denying that. Again, most states require a physical injury for emotional distress damages. You probably can’t get a claim against your architect for emotional damages arising from professional malpractice in that state either – or your engineer. Now if, for example, if an attorney was to sexually assault his client, that would be actionable for intentional infliction of emotional distress most likely.
Medical malpractice is distinct because it arises out of the tort of battery. So it has the physical injury part met generally. (I’m talking in generalities because some states don’t require the physical injury component).
I’m sorry you consider that obfuscation, but it’s a fairly well known point of law. It may be that you simply don’t understand, which isn’t surprising, in the same way I wouldn’t know a lot about heart surgery. Your insurance paymasters generally aren’t going to give you the details you need to practice law like you want to.
As to the 2-3%, I got that from KevinMD’s post today:
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/04/medical-malpractice-system-reduces-errors-improves-quality.html
He cites it about halfway down. If you disagree, what do you think it is?
“would the reason that only a small percentage of legitimate malpractice cases are actually filed have anything to do with the fact that the attorneys won’t file malpractice cases unless there are hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages? ”
I’m sure it is – who takes cases that will cost tens of thousands to try where the potential recovery is less than the expenses? Are you proposing we adopt something to make it easier for the small damage claimants to get to court? Have you run this by your insurer buddies? I doubt they’re on board.
And I don’t think it’s evil doctors stacking the deck. You guys, except for the occasional shill like you, are just pawns. The insurers are the ones calling the shots. Do you think they’re unhappy that attorneys can’t afford to take all the small damage cases where the client can’t front the cost?
It’s interesting, but not surprising, that you would criticize the plaintiff’s lawyers for not being willing to go broke fighting insurers, but you don’t actually criticize the insurers for not settling small damage, even clear liability, cases. I wonder, why wouldn’t your bosses do that?
“By the way, what percentage of attorneys get away with legal malpractice because no attorney is willing to file the legal malpractice claim?”
How do you know there aren’t? I know several attorneys, in my small region, who specialize in legal malpractice claims. Your attempts at what you think are sharp rhetorical questions always fail under the weight of your ignorance.
“There are far more attorneys than physicians, yet there are far fewer legal malpractice cases. Why?”
Are there far fewer? How many are there?
Try and find an attorney willing to sue another one. I tried and was told ” it ain’t gonna happen”.
My dream is to one day see a commercial on TV showing some guy in jail and the voiceover says ” Are you in jail due to the negligence of your lawyer ? Did s/he make mistakes defending you ? LEGEAL MISTAKES ? If so, call us right away- you could be entitled up to $10 million dollars for your pain and suffering!”.
Then I wake up…..
Google, Huey. I don’t know your city, but you can obviously get more specific:
http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=legal+malpractice+attorneys
Although given how hard it is to get a physician to testify against another one even when there’s clear malpractice, I’m not sure that you need to throw any stones from that house.
The numbers of legal malpractice cases is easy to find. Malpractice does not have to involve battery. There exists a far different playing field for malpractice suits against other professionals than for attorneys. You can’t hide reality behind rhetoric. Our insurance companies are mostly mutuals. We own them. We certainly aren’t making money from them.
If they’re easy to find, please provide. Are these claims or suits filed?
How is the playing field different? I’m interested to hear. As I said, medical malpractice is different because it derives from the tort of battery (not totally, but in large part). Do you disagree with that contention?
You’re not making money from insurance? You’re one of the few. Most malpractice insurers do pretty well when you look at the numbers.
Medical malpractice stems from “battery”?
#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement
Do you just sit at your keyboard and make this stuff up?
Let’s see. Off the top of my head, the most common causes of action for medical malpractice are likely:
“Failure to diagnose” – lots of harmful touching there.
“Failure to refer a case to a specialist” – Oooh, ow! More harmful touching.
“Medication errors” – harmful touching if injected into patient.
“Failure to properly treat” – such as incorrect advice given to patient or incorrect treatment course recommended.
Surgical and obstetrical errors are in there, also, but further down the list.
The only difference between the playing fields is that most lawyers are reluctant to sue other lawyers. You know it.
Most malpractice insurers do pretty well?
Is that why there are so many malpractice insurers going insolvent or pulling out of the market? Here are just a couple of articles from the first page of a Google search. If you want additional citations, try doing your own search.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20090520/FREE/905209991#
http://articles.mcall.com/2002-04-21/news/3410718_1_medical-malpractice-insurers-malpractice-plaintiffs
WC, have you noticed how all your opinions basically come from your assumptions, no facts required?
Yes, malpractice DERIVES (didn’t say it all involves that even now) but DERIVES from the tort of battery. I only point that out to explain why emotional damages might be more likely to come from medical malpractice (which is most likely to involve a physical injury) as opposed to other types of professional malpractice.
“Off the top of my head, the most common causes of action for medical malpractice are likely”
You should stop right there. Off the top of your head means literally nothing in this arena. Zero. Zip. You’ve gathered no comprehensive data. Is this how you practice medicine and make recommendations in that field? Disregard studies and data and go “off the top of your head” when acting?
“The only difference between the playing fields is that most lawyers are reluctant to sue other lawyers. You know it.”
Most are, yes. Just like most doctors are loath to testify against other doctors. But again, you’re guessing. You have NO IDEA how many legal malpractice claims there are. And you have NO IDEA how many med mal claims there are. Again, all assumptions, no data.
Finally, when you do provide some data – you provide incomplete data. It’s interesting you listed Pennsylvania carriers from ’02. Regulators cited several of the largest ones that failed for “gross financial mismanagement”. Namely, they underpriced premiums in the 90s when investment returns were soaring, then when the bubble blew they had insufficient reserves and couldn’t raise rates fast enough. But your assumptions didn’t tell you this.
Here’s some more recent info – and actual finances of these companies:
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:FPIC
That’s just FPIC – note it’s net profit margin for 2010: 14.97%. That’s pretty nice in this market, don’t you think? And they’re based in Florida (don’t know if they write coverage there).
You can click on its competitors on that page and see theirs as well.
Matt:
“Legal malpractice cases are unique and are quite complicated because they involve a trial within a trial. You have to prove not only that your prior attorney has committed malpractice but you also have to prove your damages by trying the underlying case that this attorney previously handled where the malpractice was committed.”
Throck, you mean you have to prove that the negligent act caused the damage? How is that different? To have a negligence case you have to tie the negligent act to some damages.
OK, Matt, here’s an article listing the top seven reasons family physicians are sued:
http://www.aafp.org/fpm/2003/0300/p29.html
1. Failure/delay in diagnosis
2. Negligent maternity care
3. Negligent trauma care – misdiagnosis-related
4. Failure to consult in timely manner
5. Negligent drug treatment
6. Negligent procedures
7. Lack of informed consent
So “off the top of my head” was pretty darn close, wasn’t it?
Let me guess. Now we’re going to discount the article because [pick one of the following]:
- It doesn’t represent all physicians
- The author has some tie to an insurance company somewhere in his history
- It wasn’t written by a lawyer
- Insurance companies “screw the injured”
Explain to all of us how a doctor’s failure to diagnose, the most common malpractice claim, “DERIVES” from battery any more than a lawyer blowing a statute of limitations “DERIVES” from battery.
Since it is a “well known point of law”, you should have tons of citations for that assertion.
I am so much enjoying my little lesson in the history of malpractice law from you.
5 (arguably just 4) out of 7 of those have a basis in battery. So again, your quixotic quest to prove me wrong is lost.
Note that I didn’t say ALL malpractice claims derived from battery – but that the claim itself originally arose from the tort of battery – several hundred years ago.
Please read carefully: I’m not saying ALL med mal claims sound in battery, just that the claim itself originally arose from that tort.
If you spent half as much time focusing on improving care for your patients, or improving the economic model for delivering healthcare in this country, as you do in this crazy quasi-lobbying/law practice you’ve got going on, your results would be measurably better.
WC, I forgot to follow up. Do you agree with Kevin Pho’s citation of a study claiming only 2-3% of those injured by malpractice file claims?
I don’t get how that award could be given to the woman whose non-existent second ovary allegedly killed her.
O.J.’s out looking for the real ovarian killer….
Re: Marijuana allergy
The book Every Patient Tells a Story by Lisa Sanders relates a patient who had intractable hyperemesis that only seemed to get better with admission to the hospital or long hot showers. The intern on the case googled the hot shower thing and found cases of marijuana related hyperemesis reported in the literature that fit her story perfectly. When presented with this, the patient was in full denial and refused to accept it, saying that her friends smoked a lot with no problems. She soon signed out AMA promising to seek out more specialists to diagnose her “true problem”…I guess it’s in the constitution somewhere that you can have your weed and eat it too.
As a side note- the book is written by an IM doctor and doesn’t get into much ED bashing…until the case of a 29 year male with chest pain, weakness and tingling in his hands who was admitted on his third presentation and was ultimately diagnosed with pernicious anemia. “They didn’t even try” was the line in reference to the “flawed thinking” in the ED doctors approach to the patient because they “focused only on the heart.” I actually wrote her an email about this flawed thinking of her own (in a professional manner)- no response as of yet…
It sounds like a Monty Python sort of thing. “She turned me into a newt!” “You don’t look like a newt.” “I got better.” Only it’s not so funny for the parties involved.
It’s easy to be flip about marijuana allergies, but here in California the combination of relatively easy and inexpensive access to recommendations for medical marijuana — with little to no actual follow-up on the part of the recommending physician — with more difficult and expensive access to mainstream medical care makes me incredibly uncomfortable. Even patients who are making a sincere effort to treat a real health concern with weed are really left with only stoner lore and (if they’re lucky) a good “budtender” for guidance. It’s not a great situation even when everything goes right.
Interesting note from the $21M verdict:
“The jury’s award totaled $21,573,993.10. Most — $19,588,217 — is to provide for Ja’Kareon’s future medical expenses, through 2081, in amounts ranging from $465,998 to $117,705 a year, according to the verdict slip.
The rest of the award covers his past medical expenses, or $1,424,314.10, and lost earning capacity, or $561,462. The jury awarded no damages for Ja’Kareon’s past and future pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.
Ja’Kareon is fed through a tube, cannot utter intelligible words and needs skilled nursing care, his lawyers said in court records. Ja’Kareon was present during the trial and sat on the lap of his mother, who works as a nurses’ aide and was 26 when she gave birth to the twins.”
Do you medical professionals think those estimates of future care costs are high?
Sounds morbid, but it would have been cheaper to let the kid “accidentally” suffocate completely.
Matt,
I don’t know whether those estimates are too high or too low. I also know nothing about the case other than the link.
But I do know the prematurity is the biggest risk factor for cerebral palsy. My sister had twins at 27 weeks and they both have severe CP. (She didn’t sue anyone)
Premature boys also do worse than premature girls…
So was it a “botched” deliver as the article states? I don’t know, but the mother’s body habitus can make monitoring extremely difficult…
So what I know medically is that premature boys do worse than girls, prematurity is the biggest risk factor for CP (and this child is very premature at 26 weeks gestation) and the mother’s size made it difficult to monitor her….
So my assumption (and it is an assumption) is that the jury felt sorry for the child (and who doesn’t…it kills me every time I see my nephews) and found for the child because they felt sorry for him. But I haven’t looked at the records from the delivery, so I could be completely wrong….
This is what scares the hell of out me as an obstetrician. That even if I do everything right, and have a bad outcome, I could be on the line for millions of dollars because a jury feels sorry for the child.
I have no idea about the merits of the case – like you said, without seeing the records it’s impossible to tell. It appears that they actually absolved the physician of responsibility. If they just felt sorry for the kid, why do that?
And they didn’t award him any pain and suffering/lost quality of life damages. So if it were all about sympathy, why not?
So, if they absolved the doctor of responsibility, and SOMEBODY has to be at fault. Who did they get the money from?
No, no one HAS to be at fault. More med mal cases are lost at trial than are won. So clearly that statement is false.
It looks like they found the hospital liable via its employees, the nurses. We’re reading a blurb though so hard to say for sure what exactly happened.
Are the costs high? Depending on the medical requirements, they’re probably close, but if he is sitting on his mother’s lap during the trial, I’m betting that he doesn’t need as intensive care as more severely injured patients.
Here’s the better question: Let’s say that Ja’Kereon doesn’t live until 2081, which I think is a pretty safe bet. In fact, for the sake of argument, let’s say that his feeding tube becomes dislodged and he dies of aspiration pneumonia next year.
Are Ja’Kereon’s parent and his attorney going to return the money? After all, the award was for future care that will not be provided.
My guess is “no”, but then I don’t know much about law …
This is why we need periodic payments of medical malpractice damages instead of jackpot awards.
So in other words, the person who caused the harm should get the benefit of their negligent actions causing death. Well played, sir. Yeah, you’re out for the patients all the way.
Periodic payments – that’s awesome. Let’s let the insurer keep the money as long as possible, and then we won’t adjust the payments for inflation. And if you’ve got a bunch of bills already piled up, under the periodic payment proposals, tough. You, and your creditors (caregivers and medical professionals) will just have to lump it.
And the great thing is, most of the insurer’s periodic payments proposals aren’t tied to the cost of the injury – they’re just some random number. Yeah, you’re not an insurance shill at all, are you?
Also, nice use of “jackpot”. That family really hit the jackpot, eh? Lucky SOBs. Now they get to pay for their medical care without going on the state dole and hitting Medicaid (which you physicians are saying won’t take because it doesn’t pay enough). So fortunate, aren’t they?
You’re a class act all the way.
Matt is letting his emotion get the best of him, very typical.
Was there proven negligence?
Seems to me that prematurity is a complication of pregnancy that can result in a myriad of issues and especially in multiple births.
Is it the doctor’s fault that baby b did not get enough oxygen through the umbilical cord, or do we now sue God? They did an emergent C-section. What more could have been done at that point? If a baby suffers from distress, is it always during delivery or labor? How do you prove that, Matt? I believe that would require some invasiveness that is not accessible as it is during delivery when the bag of water can be broken to monitor heartbeat only…how do you monitor oxygen of babies who are descending the birth canal?
And, by your statements, then what? Force every woman carrying twins to have c-sections? It would not stop a cord from collapsing or other complications from arising. And the woman’s obesity made her high risk to begin with.
WC, I think I am with you on periodic payments or, even better- establishing a legal trust for the money that could potentially grow. Costs will increase and then what? Will the parents go back and sue for more because they didn’t behave prudently? And, that is a great question about giving back the money if the child does not live a long life. I think, again, with Mattlogic that he would say the pain and suffering they dealt with is easier with the leftover cash.
Defend, as to the merits of the case we have no idea. As to periodic payments, I’m wondering if you’ve ever read those proposals. If you have, you know they have a cap of $25-50,000 per year. So think about that: if you step off the curb today and are wiped out by a semi, resulting in an injury costing $100,000 a year in medical costs, not to mention lost wages, lost quality of life, etc. you think it’s better that the insurer keep the money because you’re not qualified to spend it properly. And the payouts don’t change with inflation.
For a profession that’s always lamenting the loss of it’s autonomy to outside forces, it’s amazing how much control you’ll give an insurance company.
There you go with your strawman arguments again.
The goal of lawsuits is no longer to fairly compensate injured parties, it is to stick it to insurance companies.
Are you upset at some insurer who didn’t pay you what you demanded in a lawsuit or something, Matt? You have this terrible “anti-insurance” bent lately and I think it is clouding your thinking. Next thing you know, it will be insurance companies responsible for the BP oil disaster and insurance companies responsible for torture in Libya. Focus on the topic, will you?
Obviously juries are smart enough to decide who is and is not liable in a lawsuit, but they’re too dumb to figure out how much to award injured patients in periodic payments … or to adjust the awards for inflation. Life annuities are an invention of the Evil Emperor Zurg, ruler of the Interglactic Insurance Anti-Plaintiff Empire (I had to throw the word “insurance” in there to hold your attention).
And twisting the issue of periodic payments versus lump sum jackpots to me being a “class act” and a heartless wretch shows just how little substance your arguments hold. When you can’t rebut the issues, you turn to ad hominem attacks. If you practice law in the same manner, you’re doing your clients a disservice and you’re perpetuating the biases that people hold against attorneys.
“The goal of lawsuits is no longer to fairly compensate injured parties, it is to stick it to insurance companies.”
Again, you struggle with the definition of strawman. But I’m not interested in sticking it to insurance companies. However, we’re talking about an insurance company legislative proposal. Sure, you’re the mouthpiece, but it’s their proposal. That’s why we’re talking about them.
I don’t have an “anti-insurance” bent. Anymore than physicians who complain about health insurers and their proposals do. However, for ordinary folks in a lawsuit, people like me and you who have the misfortune to get hurt, the insurer’s sole goal is to limit what we get for damages. So yes, I am going to fight them tooth and nail. Your odd belief in them, and willingness to serve as their mouthpiece, despite the way they work over physicians, doesn’t make sense.
“Obviously juries are smart enough to decide who is and is not liable in a lawsuit, but they’re too dumb to figure out how much to award injured patients in periodic payments … or to adjust the awards for inflation.”
You clearly, clearly haven’t read the periodic payment proposals. When you have, get back to me. A hint: they get applied AFTER the jury makes its award, and the jury isn’t instructed about them. The same way damage caps work. Do you read any of the legislation you’re touting?
“And twisting the issue of periodic payments versus lump sum jackpots to me being a “class act” and a heartless wretch shows just how little substance your arguments hold.”
I find you to be heartless because you call people with debilitating injuries as a result of negligence of another who get their medical bills paid to be “jackpot” winners. That’s all. That analysis is no more “ad hominem” than you using the term “jackpot” in the first place. You’re pretty good at tossing stuff like that around, but you don’t much care for getting it back it seems.
WC, why don’t you take a break from your insurer PR duties and look around. There are some really interesting, and probably far more important to the physician’s income/work environment raging right now.
Here’s one side of one:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/people-or-rules/237832/
Plenty of links in there to see the other side. Stop trying to practice law for a second and give us a thought on some things where you do have expertise. I mean that sincerely. Your opinion would really be interesting on these debates.
Once again- why are you here on a medical blog unless it’s to get some badly needed attention ?
Go bother some attornies somewhere…..
Matt
WC’s example of medmal carrier fiscal health involved NY State. Your example involved Florida. Apples and Oranges.
Actually, I believe his involved Pennsylvania. In ’02.
Mine was I believe a national carrier, whose headquarters are in Florida. And I mentioned you could look at the profit margins of their competitors from that page.
How is that apples and oranges? Other than one is almost a decade old?
Actually, my examples were the first page of a Google search I performed.
I’m not going to do a research paper for you every time you make an inane statement – which has been quite often lately.
If their profits are so good, why aren’t they expanding into other markets, there, Paul Krugman?
You don’t need to do a research paper. You just need to make truthful claims. It’s apparently quite difficult for you.
I was simply showing you where you could find the facts, if by some chance you choose to let the facts drive your opinions.
I’m not sure what you’re asking with your last question. You mean this particular insurer?
Can I sue Matt for boring me to death over here?
“Attorney David Selingo, who represented Edward Zawatski, said the error was compounded by the fact Valenta failed to tell Sharon Zawatski that a pathologist did not find the left ovary in the pathological specimen that was tested following the 2004 surgery.
“Had she been advised of that, Selingo said Zawatski could have sought a second opinion or had a second surgery.”
A couple lines later:
“[Jolley] noted it was undisputed that the left ovary was not found during an autopsy performed on Zawatski.”
Had she been advised that she did not have a left ovary, she could have had a second surgery to remove her non-existent ovary? I’ve read that three times and it’s still hard to get my mind around.