Except the objective facts say it’s not.

“The only ones winning in that case is the attorneys, who both get paid, win or lose.”

This is incorrect. The plaintiff’s attorney only gets paid if they win.

“Certainly, neither the doctor nor the patient wins in such an instance.”

Well, unless the patient gets a recovery as a result of the case, and can now afford to pay past and future medical bills, their mortgage, etc.

” How is that justice? It is not, and in fact it is a travesty of justice and it is causing severe distortions in our healthcare system.”

Actually, it’s causing few distortions. The “severe distortions” in our healthcare “system” (a terrible term to use if you believe that our current path is the wrong one) are caused by our payment model. If your complaint is too many bad guys slip through the cracks, I’m all for making it more efficient for more malpractice to be identified and compensated more quickly. Let me know when that proposal comes up.

“with a jury selected by lawyers”

If the jury isn’t lawyers, why does it matter who picks them. Do you think the insurer for the lawyer is somehow sympathetic to the other side? Do you think the plaintiff lawyer taking the case on contingency is taking it EASY on the Defendant because well he’s got plenty of money and let’s let the poor guy off? Be serious.

But there’s no such thing as a bomb “diffuser”. Bombs diffuse themselves, generally as quickly as possible. That’s the whole point of a bomb.

You might have mean “defuser”.

Yes, malpractice occurs, and yes, it can slip through the cracks and not generate a claim. However, that does nothing to alleviate the injustice of those having to defend against a frivolous claim. You say, “most malpractice never results in a claim” and that when claims go to court, “juries usually side with the physician.” To follow your logic: the malpractice that is occurring is NOT being identified and the doctors committing the malpractice are NOT being sued, yet the ones who are being sued are winning their cases because they haven’t committed malpractice. Thank you for making my entire point for me. That’s the exact opposite of justice: the bad guys slip through the cracks and the innocent people get dragged through court for years having to clear their names with a jury selected specifically to exclude anyone with medical knowledge or experience. How is that justice? It is not, and in fact it is a travesty of justice and it is causing severe distortions in our healthcare system.

Just like physicians, lawyers can get sued, but for legal malpractice. In those cases it is a lawyer, suing a lawyer with a lawyer (judge) presiding, with a jury selected by lawyers. I would like to make a suggestion: How about when a lawyer gets sued for legal malpractice, doctors run the whole process, and sit in as the judge, plantiff’s attorney and defense attorney and make sure that no one with any legal knowledge be allowed to sit on the jury?

When you know that most malpractice never results in a claim? And when you know that juries usually side with the physician?