Study: Four Out of 10 Medical Malpractice Cases are Groundless

By | May 11, 2006

  • May 11, 2006 at 5:54 am
    Willing to Bet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I hate to say Jeff and Mike, I was right that tort reform will reduce insurance premiums. 4 out of 10 claims are baseless. This adds to the cost of premiums. Same debate different article. They all add up to tort reform will reduce the payouts and reduce insurance premiums. Sorry, but those liberals will ruin the system.

  • May 12, 2006 at 11:21 am
    kmerian says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If you look into the issue, the AMA is only asking for caps on \”pain and suffering\” awards, NOT on lost wages, loss of earning or past and future medical bills. In other words, what they are trying to prevent is someone with 10,000 in medical bills and 15,000 in lost wages from then recieving 50 mil in \”pain and suffering\”.

  • May 12, 2006 at 12:42 pm
    Dr. Vinnie Boombotz says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    When we they pass a reform that allows the person who was frivolously sued to recoup their legal fees from the attorney and the person who brought the frivolous suit?

  • May 12, 2006 at 12:56 pm
    dothetime says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What disgusting selfish immorality.

    \”They all add up to tort reform will reduce the payouts and reduce insurance premiums.\”

    Many human beings prefer that maimed human beings be justly compensated and that the estates of negligently killed patients be justly compensated. Medmal litigation produces

  • May 12, 2006 at 1:14 am
    Also Willing to Bet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mr. Bet:

    I suggest you read the article more carefully, because the headline is misleading. While 4 out of 10 claims are groundless, 3 out of those 4 never go to court, which is where the big costs lie. While yes, it would be nice to reduce the amount of those claims, in no way does the article suggest or prove that the high cost of premiums is mainly due to tort costs.

    Until transparency is achieved in the medical health care system, we\’ll never know why they are so high. However, I believe that claims are not as significant a factor as you claim them to be.

  • May 12, 2006 at 1:17 am
    dothetime says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    \”They all add up to tort reform will reduce the payouts and reduce insurance premiums.\”

    Many human beings prefer that maimed human beings be justly compensated and that the estates of negligently killed patients be justly compensated. Medmal litigation produces less than 1% of expenses and now we find most of that produced accurate verdicts.

    The error rate is probably less than that of wrongly convicted and acquitted criminal defendants–not to mention the baleful effect of plea bargaining for people who cannot \”afford justice.\”.

    Hey, because all that matters is expense, I\’ve got two ideas. (1) Let\’s work on the other 99%. (2) You volunteer to reduce your medmal commissions or medmal underwriter salary by a few percent. Better you than maimed human beings and their dependents going without. Pony up bro\’.

    \”Liberals\” will ruin the system? There would be no American system at all without those liberal revolutionaries fighting conservative Royalists and Tories in (remember this?) the American Revolution. (It is not called the American Conservative Event). Access to justice is at stake here. Capping judgements is a way to bully individuals economically and deprive them of their day in court. And all for 1% of expense.

    Get a conscience.

  • May 12, 2006 at 1:28 am
    Dawn says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The person AND the attorney that filed the suit. When an attorney looks at a claim, they know if it\’s frivolous or not. They also know how much $$$$$ is involved.
    The companies are against the wall to settle these claims because court will cost more then the settlement. THAT\’S why most of the time a doctor that has done nothing wrong gets stuck with a payout on his record.

  • May 12, 2006 at 1:30 am
    Willing to bet says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Thanks for referring me to the article I have already read which in part states:
    \”40 percent of the medical malpractice cases filed in the United States are groundless\” and \”accounted for 15 percent of the money paid out in settlements or verdicts.\” No one debates that when a doctor makes a mistake then a price for pain and suffering or for life itself is not warranted. The issue is tort reform is needed to protect outlandish verdicts from liberal jury\’s and courts. Why are there 40% groundless claims made by individuals? This drives up the cost of premiums for all. Not acknowledging that tort reform is a possibility to keeping insurance premiums down for all is part of the problem. Have you offered any other suggestions?

  • May 12, 2006 at 2:40 am
    dothetime says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Re. \”accounted for 15 percent of the money paid out in settlements or verdicts.\”
    This is a small fraction of overall medical costs– far less than

  • May 12, 2006 at 2:44 am
    dothetime-redux says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Re. \”accounted for 15 percent of the money paid out in settlements or verdicts.\”
    This is a small fraction of overall medical costs– far less than

  • May 12, 2006 at 2:50 am
    dothetime says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Re. \”accounted for 15 percent of the money paid out in settlements or verdicts.\”
    This is a small fraction of overall medical costs– far less than 1% of total. This should be a non-issue, but it is part of a political war instead for reasons touched on below.

    \”The issue is tort reform is needed to protect outlandish verdicts from liberal jury\’s and courts\”

    There already exist many judicial mechanisms for reduction/revocation of awards. They are frequently used by judges (first instance and appeals) in such circumstances. The big awards hit the headlines; the reductions/revocations of the big awards rarely do.

    Re. \”Why are there 40% groundless claims made by individuals?\”

    Some small portion of these is undoubtedly brought by outright dishonest people–nevertheless, also involved are cases where professional standards need to be established through litigation (the American way in so many things) or the plaintiff feels wronged but discovers through litigation that from a judicial point of view no fault occurred (a common occurrence in business and other litigation). Dishonest people bring plenty of litigation of all kinds–we are not trying to cap everything, although perhaps we will be.

    Access to justice for individuals requires increasingly large amounts of capital. Moneyed interests wish to put monetary caps on settlements to make cases, bad AND good, unattractive for attorneys to invest in and to pursue. If these interests can get them out of one area of litigation, they can then find it easier to get them out of another area of injustice, until all our civil courts\’ time is consumed with big capital business vs. business ligitation (which is in fact increasingly the case–with all the talk about PI lawyers, business vs business litigation is far more common, expensive and time consuming). Why not cap patent awards at $750,000? (as was definitely not the case in the Blackberry matter recently). Well, then we would have more patent violations and the value of patents would decline. Extend this logic to med mal and doctors\’, hospitals\’ and HMOs\’ conduct where the currency is your life, well-being and quality of life. Not a good solution.

    Requiring the loser to pay the winner creates similar problems (judges for the most part are already in a position to punish those who bring fraudulent and frivolous lawsuits and some do so. Some of these do hit the headlines, but not many).

    \”Have you offered any other suggestions?\”
    Yes, let the system continue to function as it is. Let more substantial research such as the article under discussion be funded and be done. It will show our current American way, while–as the saying goes–is not the best or only possible way–is the best way we have. The tools we need regarding fraudulent and frivolous lawsuits and large verdicts are already in place. There is no need to distort the system with artificial caps (where do they get these low, low numbers from anyway?)

    Malpractice is just an emotion-laden stalking horse (with quasi-labor union behavior by medical professionals–how ironic) to put caps on settlements in one area: starve plaintiff\’s lawyers, so they can be rolled out of other areas of redress for individuals\’ grievances and the moneyed interests can dominate and control access to the courts. Think about the individual\’s role in this universe. Think about youself in such a circumstance. Do you have $150-250,000 laying around to pursue compensation if you are disabled for life or burdened for life with a dependent? What would you do? Not a pretty picture.

    In the big picture, this is not about med mal at all. This is about big capital and political power, a Congress owned by lobbyists and an attack on a source of election funding for their political enemies–the PI lawyers. Everyone despises lawyers, until they need a good one who will fight for their perception of right. Use the tools we have.

    Pay attention to the other 99%. Speaking of pay, what was the total of executive compensation for the top twenty five health care delivery entities? How do we rank the social utility of their compensation vs. medical costs? How does it compare to this \”crisis\” in med mal litigation or in medical costs? Not too well, but this never really hits the radar.

    Most of these executive \”bonus boys\” (e.g. Scrushy–that\’s a particularly lurid example) never went to med school, and never put in the sleepless years of interns and residents. Their concepts of managed care have largely failed, but we still have the huge bureaucracies they rule over harassing doctors on every bill. What about addressing this expense? A cap on compensation of non-doctrs in health care management. Of course, everyone will say, this compensation is a market affair, but so is the med mal litigation \”crisis.\” Why is one thing a crisis and the other not?

    The more you focus on a problem, the broader it gets….

    Like so many popular issues today, it has packaged by moneyed interests (the non-liberal media and the faux liberal-media owned by moneyed interests) in a small and phony frame filled with false contrasts and false choices.

  • May 12, 2006 at 6:36 am
    bigbear5033 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Caps on non-economic damages would remove the \’scare\’ factor that so often leads a defendant in any litigation involving bodily injury to settle. Cap that and the down side risk faced in litigating liability is more predictable when the only significant variables are economic damages — loss of future income, future medical costs, &c. And just what \”fair compensation\” is the Plaintiff losing out on? Compensation for an intangible loss that varies wildly depending on the appeal of the Plaintiff, the skills of his or her lawyer, the location of the trial, the mindset of the jurors, &c. Caps won\’t solve all the problems inherent in our civil justice/insurance premium/med-mal/products liability/ \”crises,\” but they would add predictability to the risk/benefit analysis and equalize the compensation of injured parties based on their actual damages.

  • May 14, 2006 at 5:06 am
    George from OZ says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Tort reform in 2002, in the State of New South Wales, Australia, introduced many changes from the basic Common Law system that prevailed until then. Amongst many changes were:
    1. a 15% of a worst case threshold before there is an entitlement to claim (a worst case being defined as a brain damaged quad);
    2. caps on damages, including future loss of income and care;
    3. a cost penalty against a lawyer who serves a frivolous claim, or cross claim – this penalty being imposed by a judge against the lawyer personally, not his law firm.
    These reforms have not only lifted the ethics of Plaintiff lawyers but reduced the number of litigated injury claims (including med mal) by over 60%
    Insurance companies are happy, and their clients are happy with their reduced premiums. But the Plaintiff and insurer lawyers are feeling the pain, and those Plaintiff lawyers who have copped a personal cost order are in absolute agony.

  • May 15, 2006 at 8:07 am
    bigbear5033 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Wow! Bet there are a lot of BI lawyers either switching to probate and real estate or moving out of New South Wales entirely.

  • May 15, 2006 at 1:15 am
    medmal junkie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Moron 40% of the cases (about 1600 total reviewed) in the Harvard study. Don\’t extrapolate Boston Harvard experience to countrywide data -Stats 101 ever go to college idiot? I agree with you but you are doing us no service by making inaccurate statements

  • May 15, 2006 at 4:48 am
    George from OZ says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    To Big Bear 5033
    You are right many of the ambulance chasers have switched to probate, but a lot have changed over to Employment Practices (abuse, discrimination, etc) which is the big thing down under at this time. As for lawyers leaving New South Wales – no way – Sydney is still the best place in the world to live.

  • May 16, 2006 at 11:46 am
    bigbear5033 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    George from Oz:

    Not too different here, especially since they opened up employemnt discrimination to jury trials. Despite the hurricanes, I still prefer it here in Miami, Florida, though I would like to ship my Harley down your way and cruise around for a while.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*