This from the Kansas City Star on the illusory relationship between health care costs and medical malpractice lawsuits:
Yet the push for tort reform rests largely on anecdotal evidence of the occasional large jury verdict or outrageous lawsuit. Despite the perception that “jackpot justice” has fueled soaring costs, hard data yield a much different picture.
The Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog offers thoughts on when to serve interrogatories. The argument that interrogatories should filed contemporaneously with the complaint applies to medical malpractice cases but with less force. The question is going to hinge on the facts, potential defenses, and other tactics specific to that malpractice lawsuit.
The Maryland Daily Record reports on a medical malpractice verdict in Baltimore City last week. Finding a doctor that was not named in the lawsuit negligent, the jury has awarded nearly $1.37 million to the sons of a 34-year-old city woman who died during a surgical procedure at Union Memorial Hospital.
Medical malpractice occurs at Union Memorial Hospital and every other hospital in Maryland. Still, it is worth nothing that Union Memorial Hospital is a underrated Maryland hospital and it has some of the best foot, hand and ankle surgeons in the entire world (as well as a few other particularly excellent specialties).
If you have a medical malpractice claim against Union Memorial Hospital or any other hospital in Maryland call 800-553-8082 or get a free online no obligation medical malpractice claim Internet consultation.
Write an editorial about medical malpractice. Logic and reason: optional. Just write something. Check out this gem from the Miami Herald:
One aspect of the high price of health care and a lot of waste has been overlooked. That is the outrageous cost of malpractice insurance that doctors pay even if they are competent, responsible and the least likely to be sued.I am not a doctor or married to a doctor, but I think this cost, along with the debts for their education, must be a huge burden. I do not think that doctors go through what they do to be doctors to become rich. There would be an easier way. However, I do believe that doctors order many extra and very expensive tests, not only to avoid a malpractice suit but to earn extra money to pay for that huge insurance cost.
If there were a public option for malpractice insurance at a reasonable cost (not a giveaway), I think much of these expensive extras would be avoided. Also, I think juries would be less apt to assign unbelievable compensation to those who sued, if they knew the funds were coming from the government insurance pool and not the wealthy insurance companies.
Where do I being? The medical malpractice issue is being overlooked? Sure, if you are living under a rock.
We need reform because doctors order unnecessary tests because of malpractice rates? Okay, so we have to change our malpractice laws to prevent unethical doctors from running up the bills to pay malpractice premiums? Can you imagine if someone said, "We have to pay lawyers more so they don't steal from the client's escrow accounts?" Well, no one would publish that because it is so silly. Yet the Miami Herald feels free to publish something that is arguably much worse. You can certainly argue putting a patient at risk medically is more serious than a lawyer stealing.
Finally, the writer concludes that we should tell the jury that the money comes from a government fund instead of telling them it comes from a big insurance company. Ah, word to the wise, the jury is not told either of these things.
Look, I take no fault with the writer. She is expressing her opinion on something she clearly knows nothing about which we all do from time to time. But if I wrote an editorial to the Miami Herald decrying the fact that Obama's health care plan includes feeding small children to lions, would they publish that too? Or can we all agree that we should not publish facts in editorials that we all agree - malpractice lawyers and tort reform advocates - are false?
From the Baltimore Sun's article this morning on Senator Cardin's town hall meeting last night on health care reform:
Many in the crowd laughed uproariously when Cardin said illegal immigrants would not be entitled to coverage under the Democratic plan. And they jumped to their feet in one of the longest, loudest ovations of the night after an audience member asked why tort reform wasn't a feature of the health care overhaul.
I think the majority of Americans support the idea of health care reform and are opposed to malpractice tort reform unless they get a loaded polling question that is a derivative of "jackpost justice." But there is certainly a lot of passion from the minority who disagree.
Former New England Patriots defensive back Tebucky Jones has filed a medical malpractice lawsuit claiming Patriots team doctors and another doctor failed to diagnose his career-ending 2006 preseason knee injury, effectively ruining his pro career.
Jones' malpractice lawyers can expect a prompt motion for summary judgment claiming the players' collective bargaining agreement with the NFL requires that these claim be subject to arbitration and, oh by the way, the statute of limitations for claims against a team under the CBA is 90 days.
I won this exact motion in a medical malpractice case against the New England Patriots. The Patriots settled after we won the motion. But the facts of my case were different because the team waited an incredible two years to file the motion claiming the CBA defeated Plaintiff' claim. The judge seemed to rely upon this waiver argument in her ruling. You can find that motion here.
The doctors sued have not filed an answer. But I will bet you their lawyer will be William J. Dailey Jr. who is a good guy and a very good medical malpractice lawyer.
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?&articleid=1190012&format=&page=1&listingType=pats#articleFull
Yesterday, on the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog, I wrote about the clear plan doctors have of writing as many editorials as possible about medical malpractice. This editorial from Fredericksburg, Virginia fails to follow the 'talk about defensive medicine' talking point because the author is too focused on his completely insane idea for malpractice reform that no one will take seriously. But the 'attack the medical malpractice lawyers' part he nails at the end:
As you can imagine, the trial lawyers will fight this solution, because this process will cut them off from a very lucrative business that causes misery and inordinate medical expenses, and does not contribute anything to good medical care.
Does the author of this article believe that he converted a single person on the fence with this editorial?
