If a driver goes through a red light and injures you, do you think it is fair for you to be compensated for the injuries caused by the negligent driver? Medical negligence cases are pursued on the same principle, that the negligent party should make the injured person whole, as best as possible. The people who have written comments for this article apparently do not realize the extent of medical negligence, nor the difficulty injured patients have in winning meritorious cases to juries comprised of skeptical people like you. Do you think a lawyer is taking a risk when the lawyer spends 500 hours of time and $100,000 in costs to take a case to trial, knowing that the chances of winning are about one in five? There are many articles in the medical and legal literature documenting that juries favor doctors over injured patients, frequently denying compensation to patients when even the insurance company for the doctor recognized that the doctor had negligently injured the patient. In Wisconsin, where I am from, there were only four payments made to people injured by medical negligence for every 1,000 practicing doctors in the state. Think about it. Statistically, a doctor practicing here can expect a payment made for the doctor’s negligence once every 250 years of the doctor’s practice of medicine. I am a lawyer. My four-lawyer firm has three full-time nurses who work here. We carefully screen cases to ensure that they have merit. Despite that, we lose far more cases than we win, at enormous cost of time and expense. We are not greedy sharks. We are just trying, usually unsuccessfully, to help people receive the compensation that they deserve because of injuries negligently inflicted by doctors.
This phenomenon exists everywhere, not just Ohio. Surgeons invest a great deal of time and money in their education and developing their skills. They deal with life and death issues. They used to be respected. Enter the money grubbing plaintiff attorney who see’s them as a cash cow. We can thank the plaintiff bar for discouraging these professionals to the point of them abandoning their practice becasue of malpractice insurance cost. I only hope that someday some plaintiff attorney will need a good surgeon, and not be able to find one. Maybe then they’ll get the message.
Since plaintiff attorneys make their money from alleged malpractice cases, they should “pay to play”. Let them pay for malpractice premiums. They take no risks, have a fraction of the surgeons education, and do nothing but belly up to the trough doctors have to pay for. Here’s another novel idea. Instead of capping awards to the plaintiff, cap the plaintiff attorney compensation. Want to hear a pig squeel? Or, assign a % of every award to a malpractice insurance fund to lower premiums.
Insects and vermin keep exterminators employed too. Somebody has to fight the good fight. I find it disturbing that our medical community and the health care profession is being mined for profit by opportunists trying to capitalize on emotional issues for their own profit. When you engage a qualified, responsible physician who makes an honest mistake, is that malpractice? Not according to the legal definition. Plaintiff attorneys need to bear some cost shifting in this flawed process. The contingent fee set-up is absurd in it’s present form. I suggest they retain the contingent fee, but limit their “commission” to the actual time spent. They should be required to keep track of their time just like defense counsel is. The “lottery” aspect of the contingent fee needs to be removed. It provides an incentive for attorneys to attempt to inflate the value of the claim for their own profit motive.
If indeed Punitive and bad faith “damages” are awarded as a means to punish or deter the wrongdoers rather than to compensate the victims for special and general damages, these amounts should be used to benefit society as a whole and not given to the individual bringing the suit (and of course their legal council). By taking the profit motive out of these damages it would eliminate some of the “bullying” and “intimidation” tactics lawyers use to gain large settlements. After all police officers do not get a portion of the fines they collect (not the honest ones anyway). The fines are meant to be punitive to the wrongdoer to deter anti-social or irresponsible behavior and then are turned over to the appropriate public safety offices.
California capped atty fees in med-mal a while back – this caused the heavy hitters to take only slam dunk catastrophy cases and look for other targets – they found plenty of other commecial entities to sue – think ‘mold’/construction defect/D&O etc. Same jackels – different water hole
Mike, being a lawyer you then know the difference between common negligence and malpractice. While we never get the whole story on these boards the impression given by most of the articles is that the doctor made a mistake – not that the doctor committed malpractice.
I wonder what the difference is in the rate of people suing doctors for malpractice opposed to suing lawyers for malpractice. I’d like to compare those two groups.
…that OB doctors just don’t want to live in Ohio–cold, snow, rust, etc?
Seriously, this is probably just a case of letting the process work. It wasn’t until just last year that the med-mal rate actually stopped going up and the cost to practice in Ohio is still too high to attract new practitioners.
The real solution is to look at the insurance companies – I think they are overinflating the rates. There have been more cases of negligence but not to the degree where doctors should either move out of state or abandon their practice altogether.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
If a driver goes through a red light and injures you, do you think it is fair for you to be compensated for the injuries caused by the negligent driver? Medical negligence cases are pursued on the same principle, that the negligent party should make the injured person whole, as best as possible. The people who have written comments for this article apparently do not realize the extent of medical negligence, nor the difficulty injured patients have in winning meritorious cases to juries comprised of skeptical people like you. Do you think a lawyer is taking a risk when the lawyer spends 500 hours of time and $100,000 in costs to take a case to trial, knowing that the chances of winning are about one in five? There are many articles in the medical and legal literature documenting that juries favor doctors over injured patients, frequently denying compensation to patients when even the insurance company for the doctor recognized that the doctor had negligently injured the patient. In Wisconsin, where I am from, there were only four payments made to people injured by medical negligence for every 1,000 practicing doctors in the state. Think about it. Statistically, a doctor practicing here can expect a payment made for the doctor’s negligence once every 250 years of the doctor’s practice of medicine. I am a lawyer. My four-lawyer firm has three full-time nurses who work here. We carefully screen cases to ensure that they have merit. Despite that, we lose far more cases than we win, at enormous cost of time and expense. We are not greedy sharks. We are just trying, usually unsuccessfully, to help people receive the compensation that they deserve because of injuries negligently inflicted by doctors.
This phenomenon exists everywhere, not just Ohio. Surgeons invest a great deal of time and money in their education and developing their skills. They deal with life and death issues. They used to be respected. Enter the money grubbing plaintiff attorney who see’s them as a cash cow. We can thank the plaintiff bar for discouraging these professionals to the point of them abandoning their practice becasue of malpractice insurance cost. I only hope that someday some plaintiff attorney will need a good surgeon, and not be able to find one. Maybe then they’ll get the message.
Since plaintiff attorneys make their money from alleged malpractice cases, they should “pay to play”. Let them pay for malpractice premiums. They take no risks, have a fraction of the surgeons education, and do nothing but belly up to the trough doctors have to pay for. Here’s another novel idea. Instead of capping awards to the plaintiff, cap the plaintiff attorney compensation. Want to hear a pig squeel? Or, assign a % of every award to a malpractice insurance fund to lower premiums.
We insurance people love to hate plantiff attorney’s when in reality they help keep most of us employed.
Personally, I like Dread’s last 2 suggestions. In reality, attorney’s are far more adept at arguing for their own cause. It’s what they do.
Insects and vermin keep exterminators employed too. Somebody has to fight the good fight. I find it disturbing that our medical community and the health care profession is being mined for profit by opportunists trying to capitalize on emotional issues for their own profit. When you engage a qualified, responsible physician who makes an honest mistake, is that malpractice? Not according to the legal definition. Plaintiff attorneys need to bear some cost shifting in this flawed process. The contingent fee set-up is absurd in it’s present form. I suggest they retain the contingent fee, but limit their “commission” to the actual time spent. They should be required to keep track of their time just like defense counsel is. The “lottery” aspect of the contingent fee needs to be removed. It provides an incentive for attorneys to attempt to inflate the value of the claim for their own profit motive.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20071118_STORK_TRIES_A_NEW_STRATEGY.html
If indeed Punitive and bad faith “damages” are awarded as a means to punish or deter the wrongdoers rather than to compensate the victims for special and general damages, these amounts should be used to benefit society as a whole and not given to the individual bringing the suit (and of course their legal council). By taking the profit motive out of these damages it would eliminate some of the “bullying” and “intimidation” tactics lawyers use to gain large settlements. After all police officers do not get a portion of the fines they collect (not the honest ones anyway). The fines are meant to be punitive to the wrongdoer to deter anti-social or irresponsible behavior and then are turned over to the appropriate public safety offices.
California capped atty fees in med-mal a while back – this caused the heavy hitters to take only slam dunk catastrophy cases and look for other targets – they found plenty of other commecial entities to sue – think ‘mold’/construction defect/D&O etc. Same jackels – different water hole
Mike, being a lawyer you then know the difference between common negligence and malpractice. While we never get the whole story on these boards the impression given by most of the articles is that the doctor made a mistake – not that the doctor committed malpractice.
I wonder what the difference is in the rate of people suing doctors for malpractice opposed to suing lawyers for malpractice. I’d like to compare those two groups.
…that OB doctors just don’t want to live in Ohio–cold, snow, rust, etc?
Seriously, this is probably just a case of letting the process work. It wasn’t until just last year that the med-mal rate actually stopped going up and the cost to practice in Ohio is still too high to attract new practitioners.
The real solution is to look at the insurance companies – I think they are overinflating the rates. There have been more cases of negligence but not to the degree where doctors should either move out of state or abandon their practice altogether.