Vox Populi

Posts Tagged ‘Tort reform’

How expensive is it to file a Medical Malpractice claim?

In broken tort reform, debunking the myth, Get the Ca$h, ideology, medical malpractice, undo tort reform on May 9, 2012 at 7:31 pm

Inherent in any claim is the cost of bringing the action.  Who is going to pay is the question, cutting both ways, in every

The Barrister's Dream

The Barrister’s Dream (Photo credit: Bonnetmaker)

case.  Will the medical practitioner/institution pay its fair share for the pain, suffering and death it/they inflicted?  Will the plaintiff pay the cost of bringing suit in an environment where the odds are greatly stacked against her?  The real answer is too often on the latter.  The plaintiff, hurt, injured or dead (the survivors seeking justice) will, all too often, bear the costs of trying to obtain justice.

Please be advised that under Michigan’s ethical rules, all costs of litigation (copies, postage, deposition fees, expert fees) are the ultimate responsibility of the client, even under contingent fee arrangements.   All of our clients sign written detailed fee agreements (citation).

So, you walk into a Med Mal attorney‘s office, or are wheeled in or such, and immediately you are, gently it is hoped, brought up to realize a strict and brutalizing reality: if the stars do no align, you will be the one on the hook for the pleasure of the experience.

It is well thought, although incorrect, that the plaintiff attorney will bear the costs of bringing suit.  With that line of reasoning, the argument runs like this: since the costs of litigation are high, and the plaintiff’s attorney takes such cases on a contingency basis, then the plaintiff attorney will only take the “valid” or “non-frivolous” cases as the plaintiff attorney will be on the hook for all of the costs of bringing the case (copies, postage, deposition fees, expert fees).

That commonly held belief is incorrect.  Patients are victimized by their physicians and then by the judiciary.  Once bitten, twice bit.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements

Hot Coffee, torts and the Greater Good

In broken tort reform, debunking the myth, ideology, Think tank, undo tort reform on October 25, 2011 at 8:01 pm

It wasn’t until after I posted, what I thought was a rather eloquent comment, that I realized that the conversation over the documentary Hot Coffee over at the defense-attorney run site Abnormal Use had run itself out back in September and that, alas, my wise words were to go to waste.

So, I am reproducing them here:

I find both the initial “review” and especially the comments at times insight and always engaging.

A few items: a “review” turns to an apologetic when ideology intrudes. I fear this turns toward the latter.

The tort system, as one commenter has noted, works when a jury level-sets the community standard which, over time, settles into a remarkably fair system for recourse and redress. That is, if it is left to regulate itself. Already, at least in my state, there are court rules that define frivolous as well as the penalties for presenting one. Anything else is just biasing the judiciary, which helps no one.

But there it is, the communal tone that, yes, underlies my comments–the larger good should be noted. With “tort reform,” the right to redress malpractice (which is one of the only real means of eliminating harmful physicians) becomes harder, even to the point that rights are neglected, bad medicine continues and protective and beneficial policies and procedures go unaddressed.

Was the coffee too hot? No, the coffee, which is supposed to be “hot” was, actually, “scalding” (for those who work with the plain language of statute, this should not be too quickly overlooked).

I do not order scalding coffee, nor do I have a reasonable expectation of doing so. I have an expectation of getting hot coffee just as I have the reasonable expectation that when I see a physician I will receive care and aid. When this doesn’t happen, then my open avenue to recourse allows me, a single individual, to influence the system, however minute, toward a greater benefit for both myself and others.

Exerpt from The Medical Malpractice Myth, by Tom Baker, an excerpt

In Uncategorized on December 11, 2009 at 9:45 pm

Medical malpractice premiums are skyrocketing. “Closed” signs are sprouting on health clinic doors.

A good book

Doctors are leaving the field of medicine, and those who remain are practicing in fear and silence. Pregnant women cannot find obstetricians. Billions of dollars are wasted on defensive medicine. And angry doctors are marching on state capitols across the country.

All this is because medical malpractice litigation is exploding. Egged on by greedy lawyers, plaintiffs sue at the drop of a hat. Juries award eye-popping sums to undeserving claimants, leaving doctors, hospitals, and their insurance companies no choice but to pay huge ransoms for release from the clutches of the so-called “civil justice” system. Medical malpractice litigation is a sick joke, a roulette game rigged so that plaintiffs and their lawyers’ numbers come up all too often, and doctors and the honest people who pay in the end always lose.

This is the medical malpractice myth.

This fear has inspired legislative action on a nationwide scale three times in my lifetime. The first time was back in the mid-1970s. I remember sitting at the dinner table listening to my father report what he’d heard at his medical society meeting: “Medical malpractice insurance premiums are going through the roof. Frivolous litigation and runaway juries will drive doctors out of the profession.” The answer, the medical societies and their insurance companies said, was medical malpractice tort reform—to make it harder for misguided patients and their lawyers to sue.

What the medical societies did not tell my father, or almost anyone else, was that their own research showed that the real problem was too much medical malpractice, not too much litigation. In the mid-1970s the California Hospital and Medical Associations sponsored a study on medical malpractice that they expected would support their tort reform efforts. But, to their surprise and dismay, the study showed that medical malpractice injured tens of thousands of people every year—more than automobile and workplace accidents. The study also showed that, despite the rhetoric, most of the victims did not sue. But almost nobody heard about the study because the associations decided that these facts conflicted with their tort reform message.

via The Medical Malpractice Myth by Tom Baker, an excerpt (emphasis added).

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]