Ohhhh Nooooo...

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

Post Reply
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Ohhhh Nooooo...

Post by Bill Glasheen »

I'm feeling beat up these days. Yes, once again I'll whine about those pesky lawyers. Even been giving my brother a hard time lately. He was giving me a hard time about "my industry" (health insurance), and how we deserved what was happening. Found a few editorials worth looking at.

From the Chicago Tribune, October 10, 1999:

http://chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chapman/0,1122,SAV-9910100091,00.html

and From The Richmond Times-Dispatch:

http://www.gatewayva.com/rtd/dailynews/editorials/ssuits.shtml

If you are a net producer in this economy (and this includes dojo owners) it'll sting you and your neighbors one day. Best to get your head out of the sand.

- Mr. Bill
Tim Ahearn
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Charlottesville, VA, USA
Contact:

Ohhhh Nooooo...

Post by Tim Ahearn »

Bill

Just a quick note (maybe more later). The journalist for the Chicago Tribune is obviously twisting facts. He sites in his editorial a article published in the NEJM which according to him "found that 20 percent of the suits were filed by patients who had not suffered any injury--and that they got an average settlement of $29,000 anyway."

Look at the abstract of the original study here:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&uid=2057025&Dopt=r

Their conclusion: "Medical-malpractice litigation infrequently compensates patients injured by medical negligence and rarely identifies, and holds providers accountable for, substandard care." They also say in their abstract: "Of the 280 patients who had adverse events caused by medical negligence as defined by the study protocol, 8 filed malpractice claims (weighted rate, 1.53 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 0 to 3.2 percent). By contrast, our estimate of the statewide ratio of adverse events caused by negligence (27,179) to malpractice claims (3570) is 7.6 to 1."

The 1997 NEJM article (actually I think it was published in December of 1996) is a follow up to this original study. Abstract found here:
www.nejm.org/content/1996/0335/0026/1963.asp

The authors of these studies have also previously said that there are "too few rather than too many malpractice suits filed in the United States."

You might also be interested in the below url. I found it while surfing the NEJM site.

www.nejm.org/content/1996/0335/0002/0139.asp

See you tomorrow,

Tim

[This message has been edited by Tim Ahearn (edited 10-15-99).]

[This message has been edited by Tim Ahearn (edited 10-15-99).]
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Ohhhh Nooooo...

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Thanks, Tim.

Oye, physicians aren't sued enough, J.D. What's a lawyer to do?
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Ohhhh Nooooo...

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Tim

You quoted the following from the authors of the NEJM study <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Medical-malpractice litigation infrequently compensates patients injured by medical negligence and rarely identifies, and holds providers accountable for, substandard care.
And then the authors state <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
too few rather than too many malpractice suits filed in the United States
This is a non sequitur. I beat the horse. The horse does not move. I must not be beating the horse enough!!

Your last reference is to the work by Frank Grad of Columbia law school. I couldn't agree or argue more with the facts presented in the cases. Juries do no worse than experts - when a suit goes to trial. Most suits never make it to trial. Most people settle before. Tort reform via capping jury verdicts is clumsy. I couldn't agree more. My issue is always with the frequency, appropriateness, and effectiveness of litigation, as opposed to the outcome of a jury trial.

What of all the people who settle to avoid a trial? What of all the cases that are dropped because they have no merit - is the victim of the suit compensated for time and expense and emotional trauma? Where is justice?

And is any behavior ever changed - in a positive way - because of all this? Sometimes yes. Often not.

Punitive damages, by the way, are often calculated as a percent of the gross revenues of a company. This is why the trial lawyers fall all over themselves to file suit agains a company with deep pockets. They get a percentage. There's logic in the damages applied to a big company. But there is no logic (justice) in the fact that only the cases against those with deep pockets will be taken (pursued) by the leeches....er....I mean lawyers.

In the end, though, you make a good point. All people in this god-awful mess take facts and use them to substantiate their views of the world. As I have stated before, your perception of the value of a gun (litigation being a weapon) depends a lot on what end of the barrel you're on. It's not litigation per se. It's the use of it and the consequences of it.

- Bill


[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 10-18-99).]
Gene DeMambro
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Weymouth, MA US of A

Ohhhh Nooooo...

Post by Gene DeMambro »

Having NOT read the above referenced articles/editorials, I still feel I need to weigh in on a few issues...

(1) Just because a case has no merit does not mean it's frivolous. If, after reviewing the facts both sides put in front of them, a judge or a jury finds in favor of the defendant (with no accompanying monies awarded on a counter-claim), then everyone goes home. It doesn't mean the suit is frivolous. If a suit is dismissed because it's frivolous, then damages could and should be issued against the complaintant, to compensate the defense.

(2) Remember, lawyers are there solely to protect our rights. One of our rights is to seek damages from those who wrong us. Now, I agree that some people stretch real far in seeking out those wronging them. But, you know, as with anything, there will always be fringe elements. Let's concentrate on the good work done by the more moderate majority.

Was Thurgood Marshall was a leech? He argued and won one of the most pivotal civil-rights cases in front of the Supreme Court. In the same breath we can add countless examples of men and women who, at one time, were considered leeches to the establishment. The establishment wanted child labor, poor conditions in the workplace, racial and sexual inequality in society, etc. One by one, the "leeches" succeeded in abolishing these social evils, and established the freedoms we enjoy and are diligent about protecting today.

Gene
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Ohhhh Nooooo...

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Gene

Three cheers for law as it was meant to be. All the cases you mentioned are the execution of the power of law in the pursuit of social justice. Keep the faith.

First of all, I'm outrageous sometimes just to stimulate conversation. I'm here to be opinionated and to drive a discussion. Occasionally you'll find me arguing for a point of view that I may not particularly embrace. It's the love of debate and the pursuit of knowledge that drives me.

Secondly, inappropriate use of the law has dramatically shaped my life.

* My family has had to take extraordinary measures for financial protection because my wife is a healthcare practitioner. Heal the sick, and see what thanks you get. My wife is not a highly-paid specialist. She's an NP - the person in the doctor's office who does all the work, gets less than half the money, and has just as much legal risk.

* Secondly, I teach nonprofit in this community. Recently I lost a fellow nonprofit instructor, partly because he freaked out when a local martial arts instructor got brought to court - all the way to the supreme court. The defendent prevailed - at great expense to him. Meanwhile, I now have to teach the classes my helper used to teach (giving up time away from family) and have to consider a huge insurance payment each year to protect myself. All to teach nonprofit.

* And now the class-action specialists are putting together hit lists of industries they can target at great profit. While my particular company is probably safe, the industry I work in is not. And the final victims will NOT be the industry; they just pass the cost on to consumers. The big winners will be these few litigators, and the big losers will be the insured in whose name the suits are filed. Health services researchers like myself have more than your typical myopic view of the healthcare mess we have today. In the words of Bill Archer of Texas, 'Patients need to spend more time with the ambulance driver, and less time with the ambulance chaser.'

So...you can see why I am often cynical. There is no justice when the innocent are harmed. If you believe in social justice, fight for it. That's what I'm doing.

- Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 10-19-99).]
Tim Ahearn
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Charlottesville, VA, USA
Contact:

Ohhhh Nooooo...

Post by Tim Ahearn »

Bill

Yes the poor lawyers. Image And the poor doctors, too.

The above quote ("too few rather than too many...") may be a non sequitur in the way I presented the various snippets of information. But I was only trying to show that the Chicago Tribune writer was not being straight with us.

Saying that there are "too few rather than too many malpractice suits filed in the United States" does make sense when considering the authors' contention that only 1.5% of "patients who had adverse events caused by medical negligence" filed medical malpractice claims.

It's hard to tell what the authors are saying about the failure of litigation to compensate from the abstracts presented.

As for the debate over whether people should have the legal 'right' to sue their HMO, I am no expert and do not pretend to have all the information. I am disgusted by the anecdotes of abuse like everyone else, though I doubt I get all the information.

Many commentators would have you believe in an explosion in Tort cases--cases where plaintiffs claim injury, loss, or damage from a defendant's negligent or intentional acts. The number of federal tort cases has remained pretty much unchanged for some years. For statistics on federal tort cases look here:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/civil.htm

http://teddy.law.cornell.edu:8090/questcv2.htm

I don't believe we should limit people's ability to seek legal recourse for injury. And I believe the principle argument for imposing limitations is disingenuous (the explosion in Torts). There should be (is) a method for dealing with frivolous cases within the legal system. If this isn't working, then we should fix it. We shouldn't cut off a person's head when a gangrenous limb is the problem.

------------

Other random thoughts:

The University of Virginia baby switching case... Ms. Johnson rejected UVa's offer of a 1 million dollar settlement (the maximum allowed by law in medical malpractice cases) and is suing the University for 30+ million dollars (or something like that). She is also suing the manufacturer of the ID bracelets used at the hospital. I know these bracelets from the 3 surgeries I have had at UVa; they don't come off without brute force or a pair of scissors. She is also suing for custody of both children (her biological child as well as the one she has raised for the past years) claiming the grandparents of her biological child are not suitable guardians because they accepted a measly 1 million dollar settlement. Puke!

But then there are the anecdotes on the corporate side. Exxon having still not paid a cent in punitive damages for the Exxon Valdez disaster, for example.

Punitive damages are messed up. Why do they go to the plaintiffs who have already been compensated by compensatory damages? Charity, some public trust, etc. seem like better ideas.

Tim
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Ohhhh Nooooo...

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Tim

All good points. I heartily agree with many of them. Here are a few to consider.

Why does someone file a personal suit? Why does a legal group file a class action suit? The answer might be one or more of the following.

* The defendant(s) did wrong

* The victim(s) get(s) compensated

* The victim(s) get(s) even

* The defendant is taught a lesson

* It is a tool for positive behavioral modification

* It is a quality improvement tool

* It makes the prosecuting attorney(s) richer


OK now, examine a given suit or class of suits, and ask yourself the following questions:

Which of the above are true?

Are there any unintended consequences or victims? What recourse did they have?

Did the litigation in question serve a greater good in society?

- Bill
Shelly King

Ohhhh Nooooo...

Post by Shelly King »

Question...In the past two months I have received notices that my name is listed on two different class action suits against two different companies. How do they do this and how do I get off it and how do I keep it from happening again? One is against a bank, how did they even get my bank records without me knowing?

------------------
Shelly
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”