Oh yeah, if it’s so profitable why have so many carriers gotten out of the business? That question has been asked a lot and I have never heard a satisfactory explanation. Your turn to try.
Almost exactly one year ago, Wisconsin’s largest medical malpractice insurer (36%), Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin, was bought by ProAssurance Corporation for $100 million. Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin was a physician-owned insurer that had been paying dividends to its stockholders for years. The doctors who started the company in 1986 made a lot of money. From 1998 through 2004, the company paid dividends of $5.5 million. As I said earlier, the loss ratios for medical malpractice insurers here are extremely low, meaning they are making a lot of money. I can give you hardcopy documentation of every piece of information I have provided to you and any other readers of this.
Mike, here’s the problem. Whether the plaintiffs win or not is, quite honestly, irrelevant. You don’t work for free and neither does your fellow counsel for the defense. The incredible amount of expense needed to defend malpractice cases in the first place, regardless of outcome, is a key component in what drives the insurance premiums for the doctors. Such cases, whether in the name of ‘justice’ or not, have such a detrimental economic effect on healthcare providers, it pains me to see you try to justify suits in the first place. My wife’s own OB/GYN gave up delivering babies in 2006, simply because her premiums tripled, through no fault of her own. It’s ridiculous cases (note – not the verdicts themselves) that drive up these costs. You’re clearly loathe to admit you’re part of a system that has gone ‘suit happy’. I’m not saying that doctors who truly are negligent should not ‘face the music’. But suing over an unwanted outcome is just not acceptable.
Dr. J,
I understand what you are saying, but in my experience, lawyers do not file cases that do not have merit. To do so would be a big mistake. Plaintiffs’ lawyers do not get compensated unless there is a successful conclusion to the case. I do not know where you practice, but around here the insurance companies for the doctors do not settle ANY case unless the company is absolutely convinced that the doctor is going to lose the case. From my contacts with other plaintiff’s lawyers around the country, I can assure you that the attitude of the insurance carriers is to defend any case that has of chance of being successfully defended. With the defendants winning 80-90% of the cases that go to trial, explain to me why a lawyer would file a case that did not have merit. And if you think that a defense verdict means that the case did not have merit, give me a call and I will tell you of countless cases that would shock you regarding the negligence of the doctors, with the jury finding that the doctor had not been negligent. I lost a case last year in which the negligence was horrible, resulting in the death of a 32-year-old man from a pulmonary embolism after he had gone to the clinic three times in ten days complaining of calf pain and severe shortness of breath. I had two of the leading authorities in the world testify about the negligence of the defendant. I spent more than 600 hours of time and $125,000 on the case. If that is what happens with a strong case, why would I ever take a weak case? The judge who conducted yesterday’s pretrial conference told the defense lawyer and me that the last three medical malpractice trials over which he had presided had been overwhelming cases of negligence, yet the jurors in each of those cases found no medical negligence. Your comment that lawyers are “suit happy” could not be further from the truth. Of the thousands of lawyers in Wisconsin, there are probably about twenty who are willing to take on a medical negligence case because they are so difficult to win, even with a clear case of negligence, and are always incredibly expensive to pursue. Last year there were only 204 medical malpractice cases filed in Wisconsin, a state with 5.5 million people. As you know, in 1999 the Institute of Medicine determined that between 44,000 and 98,000 people die IN THE HOSPITAL each year because of medical negligence. If people who die as a result of negligence occurring outside of the hospital setting are included, the number would be much higher. And this does not include people who are injured, just people who die. If the report, which was based upon a Harvard study in which doctors reviewed hospital charts to conclude that one percent of hospitalized patients are injured or die as a result of medical negligence, is correct, it is evident that only a miniscule percentage of people who are injured actually are able to find a lawyer to pursue a claim. When I talk with other lawyers, including defense lawyers, who do medical malpractice work, we laugh at the incorrect public perception about the legal system. In reality, the cause of malpractice cases being filed is malpractice having been committed. To its credit, the medical community has reacted to the Institute of Medicine report and has taken steps to improve the quality of medical care. Recent medical journal articles have admitted that the efforts have only been partially successful. That, in my opinion and in the opinion of many of the doctors who have studied the problem, is the answer to high malpractice premiums.
I wish we have more people like Bill Reed and Clm Mgr and less people like Mike and this country and our legal system would be SO much better off. This is your typical money grubbing case by a couple of gold diggers and they won. Glad to see the verdict was thrown out.
Mike, your post has to be a joke. Lawyers file junk lawsuits constantly grubbing for money. I know many attorneys who are decent people, but far too many are the sterotype legal sharks. Your post is naive at best, a total fabrication or a piece of trial lawyer propoganda at worst. You won’t find much sympathy for your postion on this site. Go back to findlaw where the trial lawyers can lie to each other in comfort.
Dr. J,
Call medical malpractice defense lawyers in Wisconsin and ask any of them if they see a lot of frivolous lawsuits being filed. I do not know where you live or how you are getting your information, but I can tell you that lawyers do not waste their time and money filing frivolous lawsuits. When the loss ratios for the Wisconsin medical malpractice insurers for 2003 through 2005 have been 36%, 40%, and 41%, the few lawyers who are willing to represent injured people in these cases are not exactly bringing the insurance industry to its knees.
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.
Oh yeah, if it’s so profitable why have so many carriers gotten out of the business? That question has been asked a lot and I have never heard a satisfactory explanation. Your turn to try.
Almost exactly one year ago, Wisconsin’s largest medical malpractice insurer (36%), Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin, was bought by ProAssurance Corporation for $100 million. Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin was a physician-owned insurer that had been paying dividends to its stockholders for years. The doctors who started the company in 1986 made a lot of money. From 1998 through 2004, the company paid dividends of $5.5 million. As I said earlier, the loss ratios for medical malpractice insurers here are extremely low, meaning they are making a lot of money. I can give you hardcopy documentation of every piece of information I have provided to you and any other readers of this.
Mike…Thank you for a very concise and informative view. (and not one word concerning “stupid jurors”)
Kudos to you!!
Mike, here’s the problem. Whether the plaintiffs win or not is, quite honestly, irrelevant. You don’t work for free and neither does your fellow counsel for the defense. The incredible amount of expense needed to defend malpractice cases in the first place, regardless of outcome, is a key component in what drives the insurance premiums for the doctors. Such cases, whether in the name of ‘justice’ or not, have such a detrimental economic effect on healthcare providers, it pains me to see you try to justify suits in the first place. My wife’s own OB/GYN gave up delivering babies in 2006, simply because her premiums tripled, through no fault of her own. It’s ridiculous cases (note – not the verdicts themselves) that drive up these costs. You’re clearly loathe to admit you’re part of a system that has gone ‘suit happy’. I’m not saying that doctors who truly are negligent should not ‘face the music’. But suing over an unwanted outcome is just not acceptable.
Dr. J,
I understand what you are saying, but in my experience, lawyers do not file cases that do not have merit. To do so would be a big mistake. Plaintiffs’ lawyers do not get compensated unless there is a successful conclusion to the case. I do not know where you practice, but around here the insurance companies for the doctors do not settle ANY case unless the company is absolutely convinced that the doctor is going to lose the case. From my contacts with other plaintiff’s lawyers around the country, I can assure you that the attitude of the insurance carriers is to defend any case that has of chance of being successfully defended. With the defendants winning 80-90% of the cases that go to trial, explain to me why a lawyer would file a case that did not have merit. And if you think that a defense verdict means that the case did not have merit, give me a call and I will tell you of countless cases that would shock you regarding the negligence of the doctors, with the jury finding that the doctor had not been negligent. I lost a case last year in which the negligence was horrible, resulting in the death of a 32-year-old man from a pulmonary embolism after he had gone to the clinic three times in ten days complaining of calf pain and severe shortness of breath. I had two of the leading authorities in the world testify about the negligence of the defendant. I spent more than 600 hours of time and $125,000 on the case. If that is what happens with a strong case, why would I ever take a weak case? The judge who conducted yesterday’s pretrial conference told the defense lawyer and me that the last three medical malpractice trials over which he had presided had been overwhelming cases of negligence, yet the jurors in each of those cases found no medical negligence. Your comment that lawyers are “suit happy” could not be further from the truth. Of the thousands of lawyers in Wisconsin, there are probably about twenty who are willing to take on a medical negligence case because they are so difficult to win, even with a clear case of negligence, and are always incredibly expensive to pursue. Last year there were only 204 medical malpractice cases filed in Wisconsin, a state with 5.5 million people. As you know, in 1999 the Institute of Medicine determined that between 44,000 and 98,000 people die IN THE HOSPITAL each year because of medical negligence. If people who die as a result of negligence occurring outside of the hospital setting are included, the number would be much higher. And this does not include people who are injured, just people who die. If the report, which was based upon a Harvard study in which doctors reviewed hospital charts to conclude that one percent of hospitalized patients are injured or die as a result of medical negligence, is correct, it is evident that only a miniscule percentage of people who are injured actually are able to find a lawyer to pursue a claim. When I talk with other lawyers, including defense lawyers, who do medical malpractice work, we laugh at the incorrect public perception about the legal system. In reality, the cause of malpractice cases being filed is malpractice having been committed. To its credit, the medical community has reacted to the Institute of Medicine report and has taken steps to improve the quality of medical care. Recent medical journal articles have admitted that the efforts have only been partially successful. That, in my opinion and in the opinion of many of the doctors who have studied the problem, is the answer to high malpractice premiums.
I wish we have more people like Bill Reed and Clm Mgr and less people like Mike and this country and our legal system would be SO much better off. This is your typical money grubbing case by a couple of gold diggers and they won. Glad to see the verdict was thrown out.
Mike, your post has to be a joke. Lawyers file junk lawsuits constantly grubbing for money. I know many attorneys who are decent people, but far too many are the sterotype legal sharks. Your post is naive at best, a total fabrication or a piece of trial lawyer propoganda at worst. You won’t find much sympathy for your postion on this site. Go back to findlaw where the trial lawyers can lie to each other in comfort.
Dr. J,
Call medical malpractice defense lawyers in Wisconsin and ask any of them if they see a lot of frivolous lawsuits being filed. I do not know where you live or how you are getting your information, but I can tell you that lawyers do not waste their time and money filing frivolous lawsuits. When the loss ratios for the Wisconsin medical malpractice insurers for 2003 through 2005 have been 36%, 40%, and 41%, the few lawyers who are willing to represent injured people in these cases are not exactly bringing the insurance industry to its knees.