Articles Posted in Medical Negligence

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.

Want to know how at least one defense lawyer plans on defending a brachial plexus injury case? Go to our Medical Malpractice blog.

Here is a fascinating article from the Cato Institute on malpractice and malpractice reform. Pass it around to your friends – and your legislators.