Doubt Medical Malpractice System Plagued By Frivolous Lawsuits

[Gormy Cuss]

ttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press05102006.html

Study Casts Doubt on Claims That the Medical Malpractice System Is Plagued By Frivolous Lawsuits
System Does a Good Job of Rejecting Claims Without Merit, but Administrative Costs Are Exorbitant

Boston, MA – The debate over medical malpractice litigation, which raged during the last presidential campaign, continues as a hot-button political and health care issue in the U.S. The Senate is expected to vote soon on legislation to impose a federal cap on noneconomic damages in malpractice suits, following on similar bills that passed the House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate last year. One popular justification for tort reform is the claim that “frivolous” medical malpractice lawsuits—those lacking evidence of substandard care, treatment-related injury, or both—enrich plaintiffs’ attorneys and drive up health care costs. A new study by researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and Brigham and Women’s Hospital challenges the view that frivolous litigation is rampant and expensive.

The researchers analyzed past malpractice claims to judge the volume of meritless lawsuits and determine their outcomes. Their findings suggest that portraits of a malpractice system riddled with frivolous lawsuits are overblown. Although nearly one third of claims lacked clear-cut evidence of medical error, most of these suits did not receive compensation. In fact, the number of meritorious claims that did not get paid was actually larger than the group of meritless claims that were paid. The findings appear in the May 11, 2006 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine.

“Some critics have suggested that the malpractice system is inundated with groundless lawsuits, and that whether a plaintiff recovers money is like a random ‘lottery,’ virtually unrelated to whether the claim has merit,” said lead author David Studdert, associate professor of law and public health at HSPH. “These findings cast doubt on that view by showing that most malpractice claims involve medical error and serious injury, and that claims with merit are far more likely to be paid than claims without merit.”

[Missy M]

1. There are also many malpractice situations that are never....

claimed or taken to court.

[Faygo Kid]

2. Beware those who want you to give up YOUR rights

Funny thing how this constant drumbeat about "lawsuit abuse" always focuses ONLY on tort claims by plaintiffs. The truth is that compared to family law, criminal law and business law, tort claims are a small part of our justice system. I will always remember Lee Iacocca around 1990 saying we have to stop this "lawsuit abuse," even if "we have to give up some of our rights." Whose rights was he talking about? The right of Chrysler Corporation, of which he was then chair, to go to court? The right of multimillionaire corporate CEOs to access our justice system? No, of course not. In fact, he personally had multiple lawsuits in the courts at that time, including a nasty divorce action. No, the rights he wanted to take away were those of Joe Schmo, regular guy, and his family. The next time I see one of these well-funded organizations calling for "tort reform" calling for them and their corporate funders to give up their OWN rights, will be the first.

[meow2u3]

14. Corporations are the worst lawsuit abuse offenders

They're the ones pressing SLAPP suits on potential whistleblowers and victims. But cons won't push for "tort reform" will curtail corporations' license to sue people who speak the truth about their shady dealings.

[lisa58]

3. my husband has been in medmal for over 30 years...

...and agrees - he has never seen a "frivolous" lawsuit. Everyone who files a suit "believes" he/she has a malpractice claim. Some do, some don't.

[theoldman]

4. Most of the lawsuits are against a few doctors.

If these doctors were kicked out there would be fewer lawsuits. The problem is that their ass is covered by the other doctors and nurses are afraid to speak out.

[Sgent]

13. Your right

most medmal suits are against OB/GYN's and Neurosurgeons. Why don't we just eliminate those specialties.

[BlooInBloo]

5. This claim was debunked AGES ago...

... google up some combination of these terms (I'm too lazy):

challenging the claims of the doctors' lobby medical malpractice public citizen congress watch

They wrote a great smackdown of pretty much every claim the doctors make (and continue to make anyway).

Basically, the doctors need to cut down on preventable medical mistakes to have ANY credibility. There are VERY few genuinely frivolous malpractice suits.

[gulfcoastliberal]

6. Spoke with a trial lawyer in Bay St Louis, MS a few months ago -

With my grandmother to sign upfor a smaller class-action suit vs State Farm regarding their denial of her Katrina claim (entire house obliterated -nothing left). Anyway, he said this myth of "jackpot justice" is just that - a myth. The judges in Mississippi are repukes and have refused to award malpractice verdicts for something like 2 years now. All insuance copanies arepure, unadulterated evil bloodsucking scumbags. :mad:

Just ask the doctors in California - which has mapractice award limits - just how "low" their malpractice rates are!

[rusty_parts2001]

7. An old shibboleth that was primarily cooked up by Rove in Texas

to dry up funding for the Texas Democratic party. Just like the assault on unions. There was never, ever truth to it. Malpractice cases are the most expenses pieces of litigation for a Plaintiff's attorney to undertake. The client pays none of the costs, so the entire risk is on the attorney. No one wants to waste their time or money chasing rainbows. The cases that are brought are usually so egregious that instead of just monetary awards, the doctors or hospitals should lose their credentials.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

8. But that is a flaw in the current system. If someone suffered an injury

through medical care that would cost them 20-30K, it wouldn't be "worth the time or risk" for many malpractice lawyers to pursue even if the fault was obvious. Shouldn't there be some kind of mechanism for these smaller, noncatastrophic injuries to be recompensed without necessarily involving the court system?

[rusty_parts2001]

12. Face it--Insurance companies like the current system...

The companies charge outrageous premiums, rarely settle (pay out) except for the flagrant cases, and rely on juries to treat the hometown doctors and hospitals gently, even if at fault. The reason that 80% of the cases that are tried fail, is the the smart insurance companies settle the flagrant cases, often at the doctor's behest, leaving the dogs to be tried, and then they money-whip the poor plaintiffs by expensive discovery, and battling experts who will say or do anything for a fee. The injured victim, who likely will never even get a lawyer to handle his case, gets shortchanged, and the insurance company laughs all the way to the bank.

[TorchTheWitch]

15. There should be but there isn't

No med mal attorney will look at any case that is under $100,000 no matter how easy a win it would be. The expenses just wouldn't justify the payout for their time.

Same reason why there are so few dental malpractice suits... very few dental suits would be up to $100,000. Dentists can be as negligent as they want and not worry about a possible suit because whatever damage they do most likely wouldn't reach that magic $100,000 number.

It's terrible, and there ought to be a mechanism for the smaller suits.

[Gormy Cuss]

9. Washington Monthly has more

Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly blogs on this and has more links.


More detail here, including the fact that nearly all cases are settled out of court, and of the ones that do go to court, patients lose 80% of them. This study, by the way, follows a long line of earlier studies that show the same thing: malpractice claims are actually pretty rare; compensation is generally fair; a more accurate system would pay out more, not less; and malpractice payouts have not been rising any faster than the overall rate of medical inflation. The malpractice "crisis" is mostly just hype.

[sendero]

10. What they should really worry about..

... is the FACT that if all medical errors resulted in a malpractice case, the courts WOULD be inundated.

Doctors make mistakes ALL THE TIME. Hospitals, double. Some are trivial inconveniences, others not so trivial. My wife was the victim of one just a few months ago (powerful and quite dangerous antibiotic prescribed at double the dose she should have gotten).

People have DIED as a result of this mistake, or had permanent damage to all of their tendons. It was an honest mistake, and we didn't consider any kind of legal action because we know the doctor is doing his best (we will however never take anything else he prescibes without checking it out first).

My wife tried to "fire" him be she couldn't go through with it :)

[johnaries]

11. "GE: Malpractice Caps Don't Work"

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/malpractice_ge.html

Do caps on medical malpractice damage awards hold down doctors' liability insurance premiums? The nation's largest medical malpractice insurer says they don't.

GE Medical Protective's finding was made in a regulatory filing with the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI),in a document submitted by GE to explain why the insurer planned to raise physicians' premiums 19% a mere six months after Texas enacted caps on medical malpractice awards.

~snip~

"When the largest malpractice insurer in the nation tells a regulator that caps on damages don't work, every legislator, regulator and voter in the nation should listen," said Douglas Heller, executive director of the Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights (FTCR).

"Medical Protective's rate increase and this smoking gun document prove that the insurance industry cannot be trusted on the issue of malpractice caps."