Too bad the article doesn\’t cover the costs of legal expense to defeat these frivolous claims. The Med Mal crisis obviously isn\’t the awards being paid for indemnity………it\’s the unecessary litigation costs to defend. When will people wake up to the fact that only people they\’re suing are themselves? ATLA sits back and stuffs it pockets with legal fees while doctors and patients pay higher insurance premiums. We should adopt English law in this country. If the plaintiff loses, he or she gets nothing and pays the defense costs. The problem with our outdated \”contingency fee system\” is that the attorneys have nothing at risk.
Hi Bill,
It was interesting article but it didn\’t state that no malpractice had occurred.
It stated about the limited payouts that occurred but you correctedly sited that it did reflect litigation costs for those claims which did enter litigation.
One thing though, please don\’t mistake no payment, to no liability as these things do necessarily mean the same thing.
I also hope that you never have a loved one injured by a medical professional.
The majority of mal-practice claims don\’t generate that much in legal fees either. Most \”claims\” are not followed up on since most of them were intiated by patients who cool down a bit from the time they see their attorney.
As an insurance broker who only sells professional liability insurance to physicians this article basically states nothing. We know that the majority of cases close without indemnity payment. Most insurance carriers spare no expense when it comes to defending their doctors. This expense however translates into higher costs for the doctors. Some companies are even going so far as to file suit against plaintiff attorneys who file frivolous claims. The Trial Lawyers Assoc. is one powerful group and legislators who benefit from their fund raising will make no changes which will truly help this situation.
County, 513 A.2d 1307 (Del. 1986).
Failure to pay workers\’ compensation benefits, standing alone, does not support federal civil rights damages claim. State v. Farrar, 7 Conn. App. 142, 508 A.2d 46 (1986).
Job applicant, injured while taking physical agility test, is not an \”employee\” and is not entitled to comp benefits. Sellers v. City of Abbeville, 458 So.2d 592 (La. App. 1985).
New York holds that worker killed while committing an on-the-job theft is still entitled to benefits. Richardson v. Fielder Roofing, Inc., 67 N.Y.2d 246, 493 N.E.2d 228 (1986).
New York disagrees with Florida and New Jersey; off-duty basketball injury should be covered — public relations benefit. Malan v. Town of Yorktown, 488 N.Y.S.2d 100 (A.D. 1985).
City liable for injuries to deputy sheriff who was assisting police officers. Winkler v. County of Westchester, 488 N.Y.S.2d 101 (1985).
Illinois law prevents dual recovery of comp benefits and disability pension payments. Sellard v. Board of Trustees of R.M. Firemen\’s Pension Fund, 478 N.E.2d 1123 (Ill.App. 1985).
Volunteer fire chief who suffered heart attack at annual ceremony entitled to benefits. Coburn v. Hewlett Fire Dept., 490 N.Y.S.2d 644 (A.D. 1985).
Volunteer firefighter\’s widow must receive death benefits; husband drowned at SCUBA class that was recommended, not required. Loper v. Cascade Twp., 352 N.W.2d 357 (Mich. App. 1984).
Uniformed officer in collision while returning home did not suffer a work-related compensable injury. Westberry v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 492 A.2d 888 (Me. 1985).
City may not deduct workers\” comp benefits from disability pension benefits. Bannan v. City of Saginaw, 362 N.W.2d 668 (Mich. 1984).
City could not sue third party who negligently injured its employee (to recover compensation paid for injury). Barme v. Wood, City of Huntington Park, Intervener, 207 Cal.Rptr. 816, 689 P.2d 446
Make this Reference BAC, patient still above your shifty insurance State Farm / Mercury / Tenet Healthcare.
Benevolence characterizes the true goodness of the mind and spirit, the unbiased kindness to do good. It confers thought and regard for the welfare of other people, and finds expression in sympathy and kindly gentleness and compassion, with charitableness and kindness.
This is just how we like it. The medical costs incurred by injured patients will be paid by the states and the federal governments (all taxpayers); the lost earnings by Unemployment, and the the patient and their families can go on welfare; not the wrongdoer! We like our doctors and hospitals treated like the gods they think they are. Oh, in Texas the docs and hospitals are given a Notice and opportunity to disuss settlement before incurring the expenses of litigation (which in 25 years in the business, I have never seen happen) We want the defense attorneys to also make money.
Med mal attys have nothing at risk? Are you high? If you think about it, you will realize that the Plaintiff attys are the only ones who really have anything at risk in taking on a med mal case. The defense attys are paid by the hour–let that clock run! Lawyers don\’t sell widgets; they sell their time, training and expertise. But who wants to work on a project for two or three years and then at the end get paid zero? It would not make much sense for an atty to file a frivolous case, because one-third of zero is zero. Most med mal attys are very careful about the cases they take on and they make sure they have the evidence to back up the negligence. True, there are the inescapable loonies out there (pro se and otherwise) who will file stupid stuff, and true, only the most ridiculous cases will make the news, so I guess it\’s easier to blame all med mal victims and their attys for the nonsense of some. But for the vast majority of cases, when David takes on Goliath–there is plenty at risk!
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.
Too bad the article doesn\’t cover the costs of legal expense to defeat these frivolous claims. The Med Mal crisis obviously isn\’t the awards being paid for indemnity………it\’s the unecessary litigation costs to defend. When will people wake up to the fact that only people they\’re suing are themselves? ATLA sits back and stuffs it pockets with legal fees while doctors and patients pay higher insurance premiums. We should adopt English law in this country. If the plaintiff loses, he or she gets nothing and pays the defense costs. The problem with our outdated \”contingency fee system\” is that the attorneys have nothing at risk.
Hi Bill,
It was interesting article but it didn\’t state that no malpractice had occurred.
It stated about the limited payouts that occurred but you correctedly sited that it did reflect litigation costs for those claims which did enter litigation.
One thing though, please don\’t mistake no payment, to no liability as these things do necessarily mean the same thing.
I also hope that you never have a loved one injured by a medical professional.
Good Luck..
The majority of mal-practice claims don\’t generate that much in legal fees either. Most \”claims\” are not followed up on since most of them were intiated by patients who cool down a bit from the time they see their attorney.
This article really doesn\’t spell much out about anything. Some worthless statistics that anyone can use to justify their position or opinion.
At least I know now that we incur more legal costs when we take a case to trial than if we settle out…
As an insurance broker who only sells professional liability insurance to physicians this article basically states nothing. We know that the majority of cases close without indemnity payment. Most insurance carriers spare no expense when it comes to defending their doctors. This expense however translates into higher costs for the doctors. Some companies are even going so far as to file suit against plaintiff attorneys who file frivolous claims. The Trial Lawyers Assoc. is one powerful group and legislators who benefit from their fund raising will make no changes which will truly help this situation.
County, 513 A.2d 1307 (Del. 1986).
Failure to pay workers\’ compensation benefits, standing alone, does not support federal civil rights damages claim. State v. Farrar, 7 Conn. App. 142, 508 A.2d 46 (1986).
Job applicant, injured while taking physical agility test, is not an \”employee\” and is not entitled to comp benefits. Sellers v. City of Abbeville, 458 So.2d 592 (La. App. 1985).
New York holds that worker killed while committing an on-the-job theft is still entitled to benefits. Richardson v. Fielder Roofing, Inc., 67 N.Y.2d 246, 493 N.E.2d 228 (1986).
New York disagrees with Florida and New Jersey; off-duty basketball injury should be covered — public relations benefit. Malan v. Town of Yorktown, 488 N.Y.S.2d 100 (A.D. 1985).
City liable for injuries to deputy sheriff who was assisting police officers. Winkler v. County of Westchester, 488 N.Y.S.2d 101 (1985).
Illinois law prevents dual recovery of comp benefits and disability pension payments. Sellard v. Board of Trustees of R.M. Firemen\’s Pension Fund, 478 N.E.2d 1123 (Ill.App. 1985).
Volunteer fire chief who suffered heart attack at annual ceremony entitled to benefits. Coburn v. Hewlett Fire Dept., 490 N.Y.S.2d 644 (A.D. 1985).
Volunteer firefighter\’s widow must receive death benefits; husband drowned at SCUBA class that was recommended, not required. Loper v. Cascade Twp., 352 N.W.2d 357 (Mich. App. 1984).
Uniformed officer in collision while returning home did not suffer a work-related compensable injury. Westberry v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 492 A.2d 888 (Me. 1985).
City may not deduct workers\” comp benefits from disability pension benefits. Bannan v. City of Saginaw, 362 N.W.2d 668 (Mich. 1984).
City could not sue third party who negligently injured its employee (to recover compensation paid for injury). Barme v. Wood, City of Huntington Park, Intervener, 207 Cal.Rptr. 816, 689 P.2d 446
Make this Reference BAC, patient still above your shifty insurance State Farm / Mercury / Tenet Healthcare.
Note: Take up SCUBA, 1-13-1998 Auto / Psy.
ON YOU!
Benevolence characterizes the true goodness of the mind and spirit, the unbiased kindness to do good. It confers thought and regard for the welfare of other people, and finds expression in sympathy and kindly gentleness and compassion, with charitableness and kindness.
it\’s not an article. it\’s a press release from the justice department. ij does this all the time, though they don\’t always say so.
This is just how we like it. The medical costs incurred by injured patients will be paid by the states and the federal governments (all taxpayers); the lost earnings by Unemployment, and the the patient and their families can go on welfare; not the wrongdoer! We like our doctors and hospitals treated like the gods they think they are. Oh, in Texas the docs and hospitals are given a Notice and opportunity to disuss settlement before incurring the expenses of litigation (which in 25 years in the business, I have never seen happen) We want the defense attorneys to also make money.
Med mal attys have nothing at risk? Are you high? If you think about it, you will realize that the Plaintiff attys are the only ones who really have anything at risk in taking on a med mal case. The defense attys are paid by the hour–let that clock run! Lawyers don\’t sell widgets; they sell their time, training and expertise. But who wants to work on a project for two or three years and then at the end get paid zero? It would not make much sense for an atty to file a frivolous case, because one-third of zero is zero. Most med mal attys are very careful about the cases they take on and they make sure they have the evidence to back up the negligence. True, there are the inescapable loonies out there (pro se and otherwise) who will file stupid stuff, and true, only the most ridiculous cases will make the news, so I guess it\’s easier to blame all med mal victims and their attys for the nonsense of some. But for the vast majority of cases, when David takes on Goliath–there is plenty at risk!