Maryland Medical Malpractice Attorney Blog

Looking to build on the momentum in Illinois, Kansas malpractice lawyers look to strike down Kansas' draconian $250,000 noneconomic damages malpractice cap.

The case is a classic wrong part surgery lawsuit:, a woman went in for right ovary surgery and had her left ovary removed. This is one of those cases malpractice lawsuit reform advocates do not have an answer for: the doctor may a surgical error that even a modicum of due care would have avoided.

Not surprisingly under these facts, the woman filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the surgeon who operated on the wrong part of her ovaries and was awarded $760,000 in damages. But, consistent with the cap, the trial judge reduced relating to noneconomic damages.

In the GOP response to President Obama's state of the union address, Republicans went with Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. I think he was a good choice, a blue collar Republican with a strong appeal to conservative Democrats. We all remember Bobby Jindal's creepy speech after President Obama join session address last year (and this is coming for someone who has some admiration for Jindal).

Governor McDonnell made four points that got my attention: (1) Republicans will fight health care reform, (2) there should be limits on jury awards in medical malpractice lawsuits, (3) we are spending too much, and (4) insurance companies should be able sell insurance coverage across state lines.

He was 2 for 4 with me. I do think our deficit/debt is completely out of control. I also think it might help control costs if we could expand health insurance coverage beyond state lines. The lack of quality competition in Maryland with Care First must increase costs and I have to think there are economies of scale to bigger. I'd like to hear more informed debate about some blind alleys I'm not considering but this issue should be fully aired.

Actually, what I wrote above is misleading. McDonnell's actual speech did not focus on malpractice damage caps, although he does support them. His focus was on frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. Turns out, I'm against those too. So he is 3-4 with me on the text of his speech.

While I'm babbling on about the Obama's speech, which I thought was good, Justice Alito's response to the President disagreeing with the Supreme Court was just incredibly interesting as was James Carville's incredulous response on CNN to the suggestion that the President should not second guess the Supreme Court while they are in the room.

Medical malpractice lawyers often contend that malpractice tort reform would actually increase malpractice insurance rates. Coming from trial lawyers, this claim has been readily discounted by many, including me because it would seem to defy fundamental principles of economics. But when this same argument gets raised by the American Academy of Actuaries and is published in Modern Physician, it definitely lends more credence to the argument.

The legal system in general does not fall into step with general principles of economics. Nor should it. Very often, lawmakers try to tip events and end up tipping other points that send the car down the opposite path of the one that was intended.

This is not the reason why malpractice reform is a bad idea. It is a bad idea for the 1,000 reasons I have set forth on this blog and elsewhere. But if you are on the fence on this issue, this is the type of stuff you should keep in mind.

• Obama and Tort Reform
• More on Obama and Tort Reform
• Malpractice Rates (seems to be falling everywhere)

An ER doctor writes the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog complaining about how little he was paid last year.

I can't speak to this doctor's salary. But it is hard to argue with fact that most doctors in this country are paid quite well.

The Pop Tort underscores why a loser pay system is going to weed out a lot more than just frivolous malpractice lawsuits:

The underlying presumption is without basis and grossly unfair (i.e., because a patient loses in court, the case was somehow “frivolous.”) As the Harvard School of Public Health found in 2006, such losses merely “underscore how difficult it may be for plaintiffs and their attorneys to discern what has happened before the initiation of a claim and the acquisition of knowledge that comes from the investigations, consultation with experts, and sharing of information that litigation triggers.”

Medical malpractice lawyers in Maryland appreciate this commentary because anyone how has handled medical malpractice or any other complex tort claim knows that the relative merits of a lawsuit can rise and fall over the course of litigation. The lawsuit process assists in flushing out the merits of any case. Lawsuits - for better or worse for plaintiffs - are a path to the truth. Which is pretty much the idea in the first place.

• Maryland medical malpractice lawsuits: an overview
• Maryland medical malpractice law: a summary

The Pop Tort has a good post on defensive medicine.

• Defensive medicine and lawsuits (how strong is the connection?)
• Charles Krauthammer's Paradox (love/hate relationship with the Congressional Budget Office estimates on malpractice and defensive medicine.
• Defensive medicine (Justinian Lake gives hard numbers)

Interesting statistics from the Green Bay Press Gazette (and here we thought Green Bay was just a football team, not a town) today:

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.

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.

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?

A New York Times editorial says that the "current medical liability system, based heavily on litigation, has a spotty record."

I completely agree. The current system - our zillion year old system - for dealing with medical malpractice lawsuits does have a spotty record. You know what would be worse? Every other imaginable system.

It is curious when people attack the system because it "fails to compensate most victims of malpractice because most never file" a lawsuit. There is no way on earth to change this problem but the irony of the malpractice reform supporters pretending to be concerned that there are not enough people getting compensated is more than ridiculous.

President Obama's mad dash for health care reform - which I think is a good thing - might lead him to take a position on medical malpractice reform that puts him in direct conflict with medical malpractice lawyers who have been major donors to President Obama and the Democratic Party.

Maryland malpractice lawyers already deal with malpractice cap (which I oppose) and thresholds to filed malpractice lawsuits (which I largely support). I cannot imagine President Obama intends to put in more serious restrictions that we already have on medical malpractice lawsuits in Maryland. But the problem goes beyond just the immediate. If the president supports any curb on malpractice lawsuits, it lends legitimacy to those arguing for malpractice tort reform that they did not have before President Obama jumps off the ship, even if does not stray far from the boat.

Related Posts

Forbes provides the top paying jobs in the United States. Here are the top 5:

1. Surgeons ($206,770)
2. Anesthesiologists ($197,570)
3. Orthodontists ($194,930)
4. Obstetrician and gynecologists ($192,780)
5. Oral and maxillofacial surgeons ($190,420)

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog also reports on this new Forbes data and my comments largely echo his. First, doctors should be making a lot of money a year. There is no more important profession. Second, when you say a doctor is paying X for medical malpractice coverage, that number is completely out of context. If you are making $200,000 a year and paying $80,000 in medical malpractice premiums, you are still making $200,000 a year. Businesses have a lot of expenses, as my law firm will gladly affirm. But the just providing premium data is completely out of context.

Related Posts:

Three editorials/letters to the editor from the Baltimore Sun of interest to Maryland malpractice lawyers:

Robert E. Oshel on February 25, 2009

Wayne Willoughby on February 27, 2009

Dr. Nancy H. Nielsen on March 4, 2009

Dr Nielsen points out that a recent Harvard study shows that 40% of malpractice cases involve no medical error. In other words, 60% do. Maryland malpractice lawyers win on 11% of medical malpractice cases that go to a jury. Does this evidence tell us we need to limit juries because they are unreasonable? I find it odd this would be raised by an advocate of malpractice caps.

In Atlanta, a trial judge found that Georgia cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractices cases violates the Georgia Constitution.

I'm no Georgia Constitutional scholar but the same people that believe we must strictly interprete constitutions oppose this decision with ever picking up a copy of the Georgial Constitution. The lesson as always: the Constitution is great unless I really disagree with it.

The Baltimore Sun published an editorial from its editorial board on Tuesday entitled "Attack of the Trial Lawyers" arguing against changes to Maryland medical malpractice cap on noneconomic damages.

I disagree with the substance of this editorial, but the Baltimore Sun is entitled to offer the opinions of its editors. My problem with the editorial is the title "Attack of the Trial Lawyers." This title underscores that this is not just an independent analysis based on its view of the facts. Instead, the Baltimore Sun dives into the politics of putting non substantive, inflamatory labels on its argument. And that is a shame.

The Baltimore Sun published an editorial from its editorial board on Tuesday entitled "Attack of the Trial Lawyers" arguing against changes to Maryland medical malpractice cap on noneconomic damages.

I disagree with the substance of this editorial, but the Baltimore Sun is entitled to offer the opinions of its editors. My problem with the editorial is the title "Attack of the Trial Lawyers." This title underscores that this is not just an independent analysis based on its view of the facts. Instead, the Baltimore Sun dives into the politics of putting non substantive, inflamatory labels on its argument. And that is a shame.

The Lansdale Reporter offered the following editorial this morning:

It’s indeed unfortunate that Lansdale Hospital became the 39th hospital to lose maternity services since the medical malpractice crisis began in 1999.

This closing will jeopardize the health of expectant mothers when there is an obstetrical emergency. Brandywine Hospital in Coatesville is the 40th hospital to discontinue maternity services. Reportedly the obstetricians could not afford the high malpractice insurance premiums and moved to other states.

Real tort reform is long overdue in Pennsylvania. Someone has to represent these expectant mothers whose lives are being put in jeopardy unnecessarily.

The article goes on to break down the economics of the decision, explaining in clear concise terms why the closing of the OB/GYN practice was related to medical malpractice insurance. It also offers real life examples of how women and unborn children are harmed by these closings because they have no other options.

No, wait. The article does none of this. I quoted the entire editorial.

It is harder to tell online but I think this is a editorial board editorial. In support, they offer one word: "reportedly." Shouldn't a newspaper be required to offer a few facts to support its conclusion? How about just one single fact?

My firm handles medical malpractice cases in Maryland: I'm against medical malpractice tort reform. I'm convinced I would be against tort reform even if I was not a lawyer. But I do understand that people smarter support tort reform. So you have to respect another view on the tort reform question. But this is not an argument. This is just an opinion given without any meaningful consideration.

To find this editorial, click here and arrow down to the end of the editorial because it is an the end of a series of random rants.