Articles Posted in Medical Negligence

The Insurance Commissioner from the State of Washington has released a fascinating study of malpractice insurance rates for physicians in that state. A news report of the findings says “that the amount doctors pay for malpractice insurance in 2005 is largely equal to or less than what they paid for coverage in 1985 when adjusted for inflation. These findings and others ‘fly in the face of those who claim that something dramatic has changed relating to malpractice suits in Washington,’ said Commissioner Mike Kreidler.”

Claims were also studied: “There were 10,212 closed claims during the period. Of those, 45 claims – less than 1 percent – were decided by a jury. Of those claims, 27 percent resulted in payments to patients. More than 60 percent were for $100,000 or less and less than 2 percent resulted in payments of more than $1 million.”

Here is the study itself.

A new study reports that doctors should not give clot-busting drugs to patients who are going to receive angioplasty. Doing so increased the death rate by 40%. The results were so surprising that the study was stopped before it was complete.

Ms Matney, a MS patient residing in a nursing home, died from over exposure to the sun. Her daughter has filed suit against the nursing home.

The Toledo Blade reports that Ms Matney was permitted to sunbathe on a day where the temperatures exceeded 93 degrees. Her body temperature rose to 109 degrees. The county coroner has ruled the death accidental due to negligence; the cause of death was hyperthermia and heat stroke.

There are many ways that defendants fight medical negligence cases. Some battles are fought in the courtroom. Some are fought in the Legislature. Others are fought against the doctors who choose to testify for plaintiffs.

Read this article about what can happen if a group of doctors doesn’t like your expert’s testimony.

I am familiar with the Fullerton case mentioned in the article; I sit on an ATLA Committee that advises the Center for Constitutional Litigation that is advising Dr. Fullerton. I will let you know when that case is resolved.

Click here to read about yet another example of a greedy trial lawyer filing a frivilous lawsuit for a greedy plaintiff.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down the state’s med mal cap, saying that even under the rational basis test the cap did not meet constitutional muster. The med mal insurances companies and the docs are upset. What the insurance companies and the doctors don’t understand is that rational basis does not mean “any ole reason that some lobbyist and pr flack can speculate about” – at least not to real judges who take their job as guardians of the right to trial by jury seriously.

A bill has been introduced in Congress to fund pilot projects in several states to test the idea of special “health courts.”

An article on the bill says that “[t]he bill would authorize the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services to award up to 10 demonstration grants to states for the development, implementation and evaluation of alternatives to current tort litigation for resolving disputes over medical errors. Within that context, the bill specifically authorizes the creation of a special health care court. The hallmark of such a court would be full-time judges with health care expertise, whose sole focus would be on addressing medical malpractice cases.”

Here is a copy of the bill.

Interested in knowing some more info on health care costs? See Rebecca Blair’s post on our Medical Malpractice Blog.

You won’t believe the difference between med mal settlements and judgments in the United States and Canada.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that the State’s $350,000 cap on non-economic losses is unconstitutional under the State’s equal protection clause.

An excerpt: “The court must presume that the legislature’s judgment was sound and look for support for the legislative act. But the court cannot accept rationales so broad and speculative that they justify any enactment. “[W]hile the connection between means and ends need not be precise, it, at least, must have some objective basis.[Footnote omitted.] While we adhere to the concept of judicial restraint that cautions against substituting judicial opinion for the will of the legislature, we do not abdicate judicial responsibility. To hold that a rational basis exists for the $350,000 statutory cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases would amount to applying a judicial rubber stamp to an unconstitutional statute.”

More later – I have got to get to work.

You won’t believe how many people died last year as a result of hospital acquired infections in Pennsylvania hospitals.

Go to our Medical Malpractice Blog at www.medmalblog.com to find out.