Personal Injury Resources

I’ve written before about medical malpractice and the rising costs for physicians of all specialties. One of the things we as physicians really fear is malpractice lawsuits by patients. We are taught in medical school and in training that the number one way to prevent a lawsuit is to talk to the patient and address their concerns.

Well, it’s really kind of non-news, but the fact that this type of testimony is present in medical malpractice cases just gives me even more encouragment to get really good at my options trading.

The Massachusetts case represents one of the largest awards in the state’s history (bracketed by record awards of $30 million in 1992 and $40 million in 2005 for medical malpractice resulting in massive brain injuries to newborns.) Unlike the OJ case and the medical cases, however, the lawsuit of the elderly women involved no death or physical harm; it was a contract dispute between two unknown co-authors and their tiny publisher.

California-based lecturer and author Dr. Judith Reisman, who has served as an expert witness in lawsuits involving sex abuse, explains why Catholic clergy and laity have every right to sue for Medical malpractice, all those involved in the promotional use of sex therapy centers to cure the clerics who were accused of sex abuse.

The floor was then opened to audience questions (pre-approved, of course). There was one on medical malpractice suits (how do we get rid of all these horrible, frivolous lawsuits?). There was a question on illegal immigration. One about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. So on and so forth.

The current system of residency training, like the Marine Corps of the early 1980s, was organized for a different era and a different kind of person. The resident of the 1950s was with few exceptions a young, geeky, unmarried male who’s career was an uninterrupted arc from high school to college to medical school to residency, free from the encumberances of marriage, family, and outside resposibilities that are almost the norm today. Not only that but as medicine was not as highly specialized or even as advanced as it is today a single year of internship was all that was required for a physician to set himself up in private practice. Since medical malpractice suits were almost unheard of and the dangerous interventions that physicians could even attempt were few and mostly the purview of the few specialists, most physicians felt comfortable hanging up their shingles after even this limited training.

There's a very strong growing body of evidence, that 19th Century pro-life reformers had it right when they called abortion "medical malpractice."

I was surprized by Bush’s priorities to be addressed. Laws preventing frivilous medical malpractice lawsuits, tax breaks for those with employer-provided insurance, and a overall decrease of oil dependence by 20% seem like good things to work towards! I must admit that i have my reservations that any of those things will be accomplished with the overall result being for the greater good.

A couple of other cases merit mention. In Celmer v. Rodgers, the 11th District had upheld the trial court’s allowing an expert witness to testify in a medical malpractice case, despite the fact that he hadn’t practiced in seven months. The court adopted a loose interpretation of Evidence Rule 601(D)’s requirement that an expert in such a case had to “devote at least one-half of his or her professional time to the active clinical practice in his or her field of licensure,” finding that the rule was more directed toward determining the expert’s past experience rather than present activity.

He compares the Bush administration’s unwillingness to engage in ‘talks’ with Iran as the equivalent to ‘medical malpractice’, using as evidence the 6+2 talks on Afghanistan and an Iranian “overture” to the United States in early 2003 as diplomatic success stories. Both of these claims are stupid.

Tom spoke more about a measure adopted in a special session in late 2004 regarding medical malpractice insurance. The result of this special session was an HMO tax that would pay for a reinsurance fund that is to sunset in 2010 after payouts totaling about $120 million. The cause of this special session was two consecutive large premium increases from Maryland’s largest malpractice insurer. With doctors unable to change their payouts from the various health insurance providers to the degree necessary to absorb this increase, they had little choice but to drop out of various specialties, in particular obstetrics.

I think we should make medical malpractice claims harder to file and raise the bar for proving wrongdoing. I believe we need to insulate pharmaceutical companies from exorbitant legal costs arising from unforseen complications of new drugs. The way I see it is if the FDA approved this medication for the public then they should share in the cost of any legal ramifications later. This would dramatically reduce the cost to medical professionals, health care provider and pharmacutical companies.

The exemption has been controversial, and Lott is reviving an old debate. The issue is not (and this may disappoint Mr. Lott) whether nice distinctions between flood damage and storm damage after a hurricane reflect positively on the insurance industry. The problem is that much of the insurance industry is not effectively regulated. The exemption from federal antitrust laws goes much further than the state-action doctrine and ties only to the existence of a state statute, without requiring actual state regulation or effective oversight. This low standard (established in 1958 by the Supreme Court in FTC v. National Casualty Co.) means that purely private collusion that harms competition remains unchecked either by real state regulation and oversight or the federal antitrust laws. The “boycott, coercion or intimitadation” clause provides little or no protection, as it is accepted that insurances may coordinate in the development of forms—Section 1 of the Sherman Act does not apply, for example, if insurance companies agree among themselves to exclude flood damage from home-owners insurance policies. (The Supreme Court did consider it a boycott when three insurance companies agreed no longer to offer medical malpractice insurance at all, leaving a fourth insurance company in a position to dictate terms to the insureds. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Barry.) And who can seriously say that the modern insurance industry isn’t engaged in interstate commerce?

But, like all industries, the law, and in particular medical malpractice representation, is a commodity. And like all commodities there are a few high quality providers and a great many shabby ones. Unfortunately, finding a good medical malpractice attorney isn’t quite as a simple as finding a cheap price, rather, it’s a lot like finding a good car mechanic.

In a regulatory filing to the Texas Department of Insurance, GE Medical Protective sought to justify why the insurer planned to raise physicians’ premiums 19 percent just six months after Texas enacted a cap on awards. In 2003, Texas law makers passed a $250,000 cap on non-economic damage compensation to victims of medical malpractice after GE Medical Protective and other insurers lobbied for the change. The cap is substantially similar to the one proposed by President Bush.

Despite promises that rising medical malpractice insurance rates would be suppressed under new state laws, many of Georgia’s insurers have hiked their premiums since the sweeping reforms took effect last year, according to an Associated Press analysis of state insurance records.

President Bush on Monday in a speech to the American Hospital Association called for limits on medical malpractice lawsuits, despite the fact that Bush’s proposals are written for special interests and would not significantly reduce health care costs.�

Keep in mind that not only do they account for 15% of all payouts, they also force insurance companies and doctors to pay millions of dollars in legal bills to defend themselves. All of this contributes to the rising cost of health care.

The Republican philosophy is, if someone cuts off the wrong leg, it’s your problem and not the person’s who did it to you:

The soaring cost of medical malpractice insurance has forced many doctors to give up their practice and has shrunk the number of specialists, such as neurosurgeons, who are available to emergency departments. One doctor said he had 20 specialists on call five years ago. Today he has four. This is true in many hospitals throughout the nation.

The authors go on to provide abundant evidence of profound mismanagement. The more you read, the worse it sounds, despite the fact that it was written in a dispassionate and objective style. If anything, they are too gentle. After stating that their investigations "suggest" that the Bank wasted money and lives, they document six instances of exactly that.

This take action petition will help you contact your members of congress to ask them to help put a stop to the deceptive practices of these phony clinics -- that are being funded to the tune of $60 million of your tax dollars, btw -- so I hope you'll consider sending this to your representatives, or contacting them on your own about this important issue.

Rep. John F. Cox (D-Lowell) was fined $1,750 for accepting gratuities from John Hancock lobbyist F. William Sawyer, Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association of Massachusetts lobbyist George Traylor, and Life Insurance Association of Massachusetts lobbyist William Carroll. According to a Disposition Agreement, Rep. Cox admitted he violated the conflict law by accepting meals for himself and his wife totalling $125 from insurance lobbyists during a trip to Las Palmas del Mar Resort in Puerto Rico in December 1992; and by accepting dinner for himself and his wife and golf totalling $334 during a trip to Plantation Resort at Amelia Island, Florida in March 1993. Rep. Cox also admitted he violated the conflict law by accepting a fishing boat excursion for himself and his wife worth $128 from Traylor in December 1992.

Am a little disappointed that the JS’s Madison Bureau team didn’t also look up how much Lautenschlager’s taken from the trial lawyer lobby. According to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, Peg’s taken over $138,000 from lawyers. How many of them are trial lawyers is another question all together?

“I’m starting my business as a certified coach for doctors. When doctors have communication issues or want a more profitable practice, they call me. I work with them to eliminate stress—from relationship problems to medical malpractice risk, because the problems are usually communication-based.

Lynn Swann visited the at Moravian Hall Square in Northampton County today to talk about the costs of medical malpractice suits in Pennsylvania and his support for the Fair Share Act, which would reduce frivolous lawsuits:

The primary reason health care costs go up is because of lawsuit abuse which needs IMMEDIATE attention from capital hill. This is the very thing the federal government could do something about. Why the state governments haven't dealt with this, I do not know. ANY state which would pass tort reform in medical malpractice would become an instant magnet for physicians who want to focus on practicing medicine and making a decent profit.

The third wish was for efforts to tackle the problems of malpractice litigation - TED responded by building a blog, thismakesmesick.com, which has helped mobilize efforts and brought Fischell into dialog over Maryland’s new medical malpractice laws.

Sean Sirrine at Objective Justice posted Hospital Requires Patient to Sue to Receive her Medical Records, discussing a bizarre medical malpractice case in which a Florida woman has been required by Orlando Regional Healthcare Systems to sue them in order to find out why all her limbs were amputated when she went to a hospital to give birth to her son.

Humorously, he then wonders how we’ll control costs. This is coming from a man who has made expansion of health care technology a priority. Medical technology advancement is, of course, one of the major driving forces behind health care inflation. Of course, Burns prefers to blame medical malpractice suits, even though, in practice, their impact is overstated.

Considering that this is America (which means “Land of the Lawyers” in Potawatomi) this is a very important question. If the assisted suicide does not work and results in additional pain and suffering of the patient and it can be proven that this was a result of improper procedure, prescribing, and/or monitoring then it should fall into the venue of medical malpractice (ironically). As with question #6 if the patient is unable to give consent for any reason then the physician cannot be held liable for not going through with the assisted suicide in accordance with the law.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is continuing on its quest to dismantle any sensible litigation protection left in Wisconsin. It started a while back with its lifting of medical malpractice caps and the destructive lead paint ruling. Now this:

If Doyle has a number in mind that he would sign, why won’t he tell the legislature? It seems that he wants them to keep passing bills with random numbers until he decides that one is acceptable. Is that what he calls “leadership?” If he thinks that the number should be $800,000 or $900,000 or $1,000,000 or whatever, he should say it so that the legislature can stop wasting their time and the taxpayers’ money.

Following is a summary and guidance for West Virginia human resource managers on retaliatory discharge related claims faced by health care providers. The summary was prepared by my colleague, Ben Salango, a partner at Flaherty, Sensabaugh & Bonasso, PLLC. Ben's a member of our Health Care Practice Group and focuses on medical malpractice and employment litigation.

Check out Kevin’s review of Tom Baker’s new book, The Medical Malpractice Myth. AEI, of all places, is hosting an event on the book December 19.

Gov. Jim Doyle today vetoed new caps on pain and suffering damages to victims of medical malpractice, saying they weren’t different enough from the previous set of limits to pass constitutional muster.

Maybe next time I visit the dentist I will come with my own props; props that even out the equation – my own special instruments. I’m thinking a butcher knife or medical malpractice paperwork in one hand for a negative answer, and my credit card in the other hand for a positive answer.

While medical malpractice is a problem, its costs account for less than 1 percent of spending. And defensive medicine, where doctors run tests or do procedures to lower their chances of being sued, makes up no more than 9 percent of total spending, the study of spending in 30 nations found.

I am continually disappointed and confused by the medical malpractice insurance industry’s aversion to novel strategies to reduce claims and modify underwriting methodologies. The debate about apology and disclosure is a prime example. Resisters to to apology programs offer no data supporting the widespread, dogmatic position of apology avoidance… a position promoted for nearly 30 years by the risk management industry… and reflective of both a policy and mindset that has contributed significantly to the poor state of affairs in the industry.

Hungary, as other countries which are common destination for medical tourism, has weak medical malpractice law. Some hospitals in the country could no longer get malpractice insurance from insurance companies because simply there were too many malpractice cases happened.

A new study by the Commonwealth Fund found significantly higher rates of medical error in the United States than in five other countries. Any serious approach to restraining medical malpractice costs has to address the error issue first. Comsumeraffairs.com has a good summary of the study.

This years debate resolution is “medical malpractice must be significantly reformed in the US”. I have been doing a lot of research on both the affirmative, and negative side, trying to make sure I know both sides of the case, so I can debate both sides well. It is a lot of work but at least its interesting.

The research seems to include federal contributions only, and given that the stated reason for the rise in doctor’s donations is the medical malpractice issue (which is a state law issue, too) it would be interesting to know if similar trends are evident in state campaign giving, and whether there are differences among jurisdictions.

In a letter faxed to Pinellas-Pasco County State Attorney Bernie McCabe, Bush said Michael Schiavo testified in a 1992 medical malpractice trial that he found his wife collapsed at 5 a.m., and he said in a 2003 television interview that he found her about 4:30 a.m. He called 911 at 5:40 a.m.

“Patients receiving only two drugs are more likely to fail treatment, become sicker, and die,” says Paul Volberding, MD, chair of the HIVMA Board of Directors. “Three-drug regimens are the standard of care in the United States. Mississippi’s two-drug limit is not only unethical, it amounts to medical malpractice.”

Re-igniting the medical malpractice overhaul debate, a new study by Dartmouth College researchers suggests that huge jury awards and financial settlements for injured patients have not caused the explosive increase in doctors' insurance premiums.

Over the last 20 years these medical dramas have been sprouting up in the landscape of television like weeds in my neighbor’s garden during the summer. Is there any correlation with the increase in medical television shows to the 1288% increase in malpractice lawsuits? I would argue yes at least partly. Although there are many different reasons for an increase medical malpractice costs, there is a common thread, an increase in the magnitude of lawsuits.

When it comes to patients in general, the medical profession that's charged with taking care of our individual health care is freaking out about rising awards in medical malpractice claims, which happen when one of them injures a patient. But the skyrocketing costs of malpractice insurance aren't actually caused by rising claims, and appear tied more closely to fast rising healthcare costs. Yet they order wasteful tests out of an irrational fear, anyway. The AMA doesn't want you to look at the numbers behind the curtain or suggest that they revoke...

Wow … this is really going to be a ramble! Fast forward to age 49 when just by chance I end up going to a pulmonary specialist as a primary care physician who routinely administers pulmonary function tests to all patients…regardless. I felt fine; I had no problems breathing but the PFT showed COPD – Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary disease. The good doc says, “You’ve gotta quit smoking.” I didn’t want to do it! I thought I enjoyed it! And then the governor of the state raised the taxes on cigarettes to help pay for Pennsylvania doctors’ medical malpractice insurance. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back! Since I felt fine, I couldn’t accept the doctor’s advice; but when it hit my pocket book – I took a good, hard look at it and decided it was time to give it up.

Vermont physicians believe the cost of medical malpractice insurance recently approved by a state regulatory agency spells trouble for both local doctors and their patients.

This has perverse consequences. According to the Institute of Medicine, a non-governmental organisation in Washington, DC, preventable medical errors--from unplanned drug interactions, say--kill between 44,000 and 98,000 people each year in America alone. This makes medical snafus the eighth leading cause of death, ahead of car accidents, breast cancer and AIDS. "It's like crashing two 747s a day," says Mark Blatt, who was a family doctor for 20 years before he joined Intel, the world's

Jim Garvin has a good post on the regulation of medical malpractice insurance (see here). Our experience in the specialty lines market is that freedom from rate and form regulation (ie the surplus lines) provides significantly greater liquidity in the market than the segment of the market requiring rate and form filings (the admitted market).

I'm just saying, how can you have an honest discussion about medical malpractice reform without addressing those real errors made by doctors. There's a mentality that permeates the medical profession whereby decent doctors are reluctant to point out mistakes made by other doctors. That's where I see a need for reform. Any reform that doesn't include that just looks doctors seeking.... well, I don't even want to say.

Legal reform doesn't preclude medical reform. But right now, the legal system is sufficiently inaccurate with respect to medical malpractice that any improvements in the medical system wouldn't fix the problem of the costs imposed by the legal system. It's almost an entirely separate issue.

Poor communication and mismanaged expectations between doctors and patients are chief among the forces behind the rapidly increasing number of medical malpractice lawsuits. In an effort to help health care providers lower the incidence and severity of malpractice claims, Aon has partnered with Rightfield Solutions, LLC, to offer Emmi, a cutting-edge patient education and communication system.

An article by the Nashua Telegraph on the NH Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on their proposed medical malpractice bill that would drastically limit the people's ability to obtain medical negligence justice in New Hampshire.

In the UK, if you're found to have filed a frivolous case, you have to pay all the legal fees. I'm told that works pretty well. But what if the problem isn't necessarily with the filees? This 2002 report by Public Citizen seems to indicate that a significant bulk of claims are filed against repeat offenders. Slightly over half of all medical malpractice claims are made against doctors with two or more claims, and fully 16.5% of those claims are made against those with...

Other clients from whom Tehin stole settlement money included two medical malpractice victims and two claimants in a will contest. (ph)

" "The Washington Post takes a detailed look at a single medical malpractice case--one that began when Dr. Kevin Kearney of Maryland's Eastern Shore urged an 18-year-old mother to have her baby without a Caesarean section. What followed was a complicated delivery resulting in permanent injuries to the child, and a multi-year legal battle, filled with dramatic moments that illustrate how an unreliable system can fail both doctors and patients." "

Just 5 percent of American doctors are responsible for half the malpractice in the United States, according to a new analysis of federal data by the consumer group Public Citizen.

Isn’t it interesting how Bush is willing to meet with groups who support capping medical malpractice payouts, but has repeatedly refused to meet with patients who have been actual victims of malpractice? Surprised?

Contrary to reports from those who oppose patients’ rights, data used in this map clearly demonstrate that the number of doctors has risen in every state, every year over the last three years. Moreover, in the five states that recently passed new medical malpractice caps—MS, NV, OH, OK, and TX—premiums still rose at nearly double the rate of states that did not pass a damage cap.

Conflicting sides of the medical malpractice debate have come to an agreement - both oppose new state Senate legislation addressing the issue.

More than a year after it began, the debate over medical malpractice legislation remains plagued by political divisions and seemingly endless complications and twists.

Here's an idea for any politician who wants to do something about skyrocketing premiums for medical malpractice insurance: make sure the doctors who aren't competent to practice get their licenses revoked.

The fact that some medical boards wink at this kind of behavior is another very good reason to oppose any effort to impose caps on the size of medical malpractice awards.

The legislation, approved by lawmakers last week, limits non-economic damage awards to $350,000. If there are multiple defendants, such awards would be capped at $1.05 million in medical malpractice suits.

The House yesterday overwhelmingly approved a new plan for screening medical malpractice cases in an effort to reduce the cost of insurance for doctors.

Health insurers are kicking off a lobbying campaign to push medical malpractice reform.

Roll Call reports America's Health Insurance Plans kicked off an advertising campaign and lobbying effort Monday aimed at pushing medical malpractice protections pending in Congress to the forefront of the legislative agenda.

Even though the Wojcieszaks won a financial settlement and could be considered winners in the malpractice system, they have joined a growing number of healthcare organizations, patient advocacy groups and others who think the time has come for fundamental change.

They want a system that encourages willing disclosure when medical mistakes are made and insists on corrective action. And for those who have been harmed, an apology and appropriate compensation. They also want to eliminate some of the emotional pain and rancor that are part of the present system.

These days the president rarely mentions the topic, and the effort in Congress to rein in medical malpractice litigation has stalled, according to proponents and opponents of the bill.

This legislation would help insurance companies, solely and exclusively. It certainly would not help the victims of medical malpractice. In theory, capping the amount of malpractice awards should keep malpractice insurance premiums down, thus reducing the overall cost of health care. However, a study conducted in --- where else, Texas --- concludes that malpractice insurance premiums are skyrocketing even without huge jury awards:

Almost everywhere President Bush traveled on the campaign trail last year, he lashed out at plaintiffs’ lawyers for filing “junk lawsuits” that he said were sending the cost of health care out of sight. These days the president rarely mentions the topic, and the effort in Congress to rein in medical malpractice litigation has stalled, according to proponents and opponents of the bill. Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and John F. Harris :: Washington Post :: 4.3.05

Is Michael Schiavo culpable for anything? Did he lie about her late remembered desire not to be on life support, seeing it was never mentioned in the initial years, even at the medical malpractice trial?

An expert witness in a medical malpractice case in 4th District Court in Provo has asked to withdraw because of pressure on his wife from Intermountain Health Care.Dr. John R. Marshall asked to withdraw after he said his wife, Elaine, told him she felt intimidated by IHC, one of the defendants in the case.

Anyone who watched this year’s State of the Union Address, or for that matter, listened to the rhetoric of the Bush-Cheney campaign last year, knows that the GOP is about to launch a full-court (no pun intended) press for legislation to impose caps on jury awards in medical malpractice cases. This is a capricious “solution” to the capricious nature of the current medical malpractice system, in which a relatively small handful of plaintiffs and their lawyers earn huge awards while most people suffering injury from medical errors...

Most of the dollars awarded for medical malpractice go to covering subsequent health costs. Such awards would be nonexistant if everyone had health insurance as they do in Canada. In Canada, medical malpractice premiums are less than half of those in the US. Thus, the best solution for reducing medical malpractice premiums would be to extend health insurance to all Americans.

Being a nurse by profession I believe there should be no cap in medical malpractice cases. If its proven that it is neglect by the part of the medical team then they should or the organization should pay. Complications surface years after the error. Who then deals with it. The patient not the medical staff. The families are also affected and most of the awarded monies goes back to pay for treatment after the fact. Hold those accountable for the neglect. This is the lives of people we are talking about how would you feel if it happened to your loved...

Capping medical malpractice payouts, putting in place President Bush's centerpiece education law and modernizing the election system also are among the GOP goals that, critics say, expand federal powers at the expense of states' rights.

For instance, a group called Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) advocated for limits on our civil justice system and Proposition 12, which limited medical malpractice awards to $250,000. They have advocated for the use of mandatory arbitration stripping our Constitutional rights to a judge and jury. Their advocating has resulted in little if any reductions in consumer goods or protections for consumers, but has provided overwhelming protection from lawsuits for business interests.

Doctors and hospitals will have more protection from medical malpractice lawsuits beginning July 1 under four bills signed into law Monday by Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

Different River has an interesting post on medical malpractice. He attempts to use the econ technique where you point out that if X were true, there would be a lot of money to be made by doing Y. So if Y is not happening, X is unlikely to be true. While this is a part of “the economic way of thinking", IMHO, we should be careful not to have too much confidence in the output, since its easy to make subtle mistakes. The comments section demonstrates some such issues for this case.

Current law allows doctors to go without med-mal coverage if they post a notice on the wall of their office in the reception area to let patients know they don't have insurance. They also must agree to pay any judgment against them up to the amount of insurance they otherwise would have had to carry.

But if this proposed law passes, Florida doctors would be required to either buy med-mal insurance, have a letter of credit or have an escrow account set up to pay judgments in a malpractice lawsuit.

It's a move some say will have devastating results on health care in the state if it passes. That's because doctors "already can't afford the insurance, and some insurance companies won't insure the doctors in high-risk specialties," says Lisette Gonzalez Mariner, spokeswoman for the Tallahassee-based Florida Medical Association, which represents about 16,000 doctors in the state.

The frequency of medical malpractice lawsuits is starting to decline in West Virginia, but the medical and legal communities are at odds about why fewer cases are being filed now than a couple years ago.

The West Virginia Legislature changed civil justice laws relating to medical liability lawsuits in 2001 and 2003.

The 2001 changes went into effect the following year and required all medical negligence lawsuits to have a certificate of merit completed before the case could be filed, introduced mandatory mediation and established litigation deadlines to keep cases from languishing in the court system.

The 2003 changes were more diverse and included a lower limit on non-economic damages from $1 million to a sliding scale of $250,000 to $500,000, a $500,000 limit on total damages for malpractice lawsuits arising from trauma care and financing for the new West Virginia Physicians Mutual Insurance Co. The 2003 reforms took effect July 1, 2003.

People who file medical malpractice lawsuits would be required to go through mediation before their cases could move through the court system under a bill approved by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Doctors complain that too frequently lawsuits that are filed against them are thrown out, leaving them with legal expenses, said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Harrison, R-Columbia.

"Mediation earlier in the process eliminates some of the costs of defending frivolous claims," Harrison said.

The wife of Senate President David Williams has settled her medical malpractice lawsuit against a Lexington ophthalmologist in a case that drew attention because of Williams' support of a proposed constitutional amendment to control such lawsuits.

Robyn Williams sued Dr. Thomas Abell in 2002, alleging that eye surgery he performed on her in the early 1990s damaged her vision. She claimed at least four "non-economic" damages, including pain and suffering.

David Williams has repeatedly sponsored a proposed amendment that would allow the legislature to cap jury awards in civil damage suits against doctors and hospitals.

The Maryland Patients' Access to Quality Health Care Act of 2004 was recently enacted. Information concerning the bill's passage is here. The unofficial, marked up text of the bill is here. Among other things, the Act limits an award or verdict for noneconomic damage for a cause of action arising between 1/1/2005 and 12/31/2008 to $650,000. After that, it increases by $15,000 per year.

At Point of Law, Walter Olson notes that many states use an "offer of judgment" rule as a means of promoting settlement. In some of the states, including Michigan, the sanctions that will apply - if an offer is rejected by a party who then does not prevail - will include attorneys' fees and other costs of litigation. This is, theoretically, a meaningful protection against frivolous plaintiff cases, a form of the "loser pays" system he advocates. Note, though, the qualification.

Michigan uses the same schema to apply to both offers of judgment and to pretrial case evaluation. A party who either loses or does not improve on the case evaluation / offer of judgment figure by more than 10% can have the court award him the costs and fees necessitated by the rejection. But good luck getting them paid if you are the defendant.

This blog on workplace safety has a piece on the Bush Administration's plan to limit medical malpractice liability.

A story in the New York Times exposes Bush's lies about medical malpractice "reform," one part of the administration's drive to weaken people's ability to sue companies (or physicians) for negligence and products (such as asbestos) that kill; or as Bush says, "costly and frivolous lawsuits."

The myth, according to the President and the business lobbyists is that the high costs of malpractice insurance "don't start in an examining room or an operating room," the president declared. "They start in a courtroom."

The truth, according to the Times is that there has not been a rise in medical malpractice awards causing malpractice insurance rates to skyrocket. Rising insurance rates are a product of poor investments by the insurance companies that they are trying to recoup by raising their rates.

The U.S. Congress is working on malpractice legislation, so this Harvard report is apt. The study doesn't say that malpractice suits in and of themselves are bad. It simply points out that the malpractice system isn't working very well to achieve better medicine. That's like saying the health insurance system isn't working very well to achieve better medicine.

The current tort-based medical malpractice system fails to meet any of three basic goals:

It does not identify patients injured as the result of medical care.

It fails to reimburse injured patients commensurate with the degree of their injury and loss.

It does not identify "bad" physicians and is counterproductive to developing systems that would help reduce medical errors.

The Harvard Medical Malpractice Study reviewed 30,000 hospital admissions in New York State in 1984. It is the largest and most detailed study published that evaluates hospital medical care.

The study identified 1,278 adverse events among this patient population, including 306 instances of negligence. Of these 306 negligently injured patients, eight entered the current malpractice system--fewer than 3 percent.

Failure to identify injured patients precludes any effective remuneration to the injured patient. Further data from the same study helps explain why the system is so terribly expensive.

During the last presidential election, medical malpractice was in the political limelight since Democratic Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards was a personal injury lawyer specializing in medical malpractice. While the following tax may discourage medical malpractice cases somewhat, news stories during the election pointed out that medical malpractice is a very small percentage of overall health care costs.

The state's power to tax is quite broad and everyone knows the rule of optimal taxation: If it moves tax it! Other rationales for taxes exist do exist of course. One of my favorites is the use of the tax power to encourage or discourage behaviors the legislature believes are worthy of this particular type of incentive.

New Jersey has struck a chord for good taxation (Newsday). It is now imposing taxes on lawyers because, in part, the legislature believed lawyers are causing the med mal crisis. The president of the NJ Bar Association is suing the state as he thinks this $75 tax is "grossly unfair" and he denies there is a crisis. In fact, he repeats the ridiculous trial bar argument that the reason med mal premiums are increasing is due to bad investments by the insurers. So the question for the day is "Is the suit to stop the lawyer tax frivolous given the states broad power to tax?" Alternatively, if the litigant does succeed would the winning lawyers get big legal fees and some coupons for the members of the bar?