Indictment alleges nurse was 'Angel of Death'

Daily Herald Indictment alleges nurse was 'Angel of Death': "A worker at a McHenry County nursing home gave patients dangerous doses of morphine and other drugs in 2006 with the permission of a facility director who told her to serve as an 'Angel of Death,' according a McHenry County grand jury.
Both women now face multiple felony charges alleging they jeopardized patients' lives, but authorities stopped short Friday of accusing either of killing or intending to kill the home's residents.
The indictments come after a 15-month state police investigation into the home sparked by allegations that a former employee had performed as many as six mercy killings at the Woodstock Residence nursing home in 2006."

Article

Kindred Loses 2 Abuse cases $750,000 ordered paid to Victims Families

Two Nursing Home Verdicts against Kindred: $750,000 for emotional distress damages

Several verdicts of interest:Two patients were treated inhumanely at a local Nursing Home. Suit was brought to hold the Nursing Home accountable. The nursing home did not treat these cases seriously at first only offering to settle one case for $10,000.

On June 4, 2007 two Plaintiffs represented by Hamill Law office of Quincy, MA. were awarded verdicts in two Nursing Home Abuse cases:

Client Clara H. was a 105 Nursing Home patient who we were able to prove was changed 'roughly' and inappropriately by a certified nurse aid. The Judge found that the abusive change was 'not isolated' and awarded her estate $300,000 for verbal and physical abuse causing emotional distress. There was no separate claim for personal injuries.

Jim H. was an 86 year old Nursing Home patient who was also changed 'roughly' in a manner that was painful and inappropriate. The Judge found that the abusive change was 'not isolated' and awarded his estate $450,000 for verbal and physical abuse causing emotional distress. There was no seperate claim for personal injuries.

Both clients had been dementia patients who were deceased at the time of trial. Both Verdicts were against Kindred Healthcare in Franklin,MA.

See Full Kindred Nursing Abuse article

Texas Caps Chill Victims Lawsuits

Nearly three years after Texas moved to cap the amount of jury awards, the number of lawsuits filed and the size of those awards are shrinking

When news of a $606 million jury award hit the news wires last year, Michael Sawicki's phone was ringing off the hook.
People wanted to know if Sawicki, a Dallas lawyer, could secure the same justice for their medical malpractice claims that he secured for the survivors of William Jameson, who a Dallas County jury determined was dosed with a fatal level of chemotherapy drugs from his doctor.
But when Sawicki answers calls from those interested in filing medical lawsuits, he must determine if the cases merit the time and expense they require. He filed the chemo suit a week before Texas' major 2003 tort reform law took effect, limiting non-economic damages to $250,000 per physician, up to $750,000 if another doctor and hospital are involved.
Another cold reality: The chemo suit netted only $2.5 million, the amount of insurance coverage the medical practice carried. Attempting to collect any more would likely prompt the physician's clinic to file for bankruptcy.
A year after landing the second-largest jury award in the United States, Sawicki is far from being set for life; the scarcity of money from medical malpractice suits has prompted him to branch out into business law and general negligence cases.
"While the jury might feel the plaintiffs might deserve it, the legislators haven't heard the evidence and have put caps on awards," said Sawicki, who practices at the firm Brown, Sawicki & Mitchell L.L.P. Few lawyers would argue that jury awards are becoming smaller in Texas, and that the number of medical cases has dropped.
What's more a point of discussion: Has the backlash against major jury awards gone too far?
'Hellhole' no more?
The Texas Gulf Coast has been consistently named a "Judicial Hellhole" by the American Tort Reform Association for the past four years, mainly because of major verdicts in Beaumont and courts nearby. Many cases are heard in that area because of the area's blue-collar juries, one of which handed down the $253 million Vioxx award in Angleton, a town about 40 miles south of Houston. It was the third-largest award handed down by a jury in the United States in 2005, according to Lawyers Weekly USA, which monitors jury awards across the country.
Headlines announcing such awards are deceptive because juries aren't told of lawsuit caps before they hand down their verdicts, or that judges ultimately decide how much money is awarded, many lawyers say.
Yet public reaction to such awards is what's triggering a juror groundswell elsewhere.
"In the 10-years-plus I've been doing this in Texas, I've seen a shift in the mindset of the population," said James Lowery of the law firm of Kirk & Lockhart. "I think the tort reform is the result of the shift of the mindset. The people I've encountered in the jury selection process ... have developed a feeling that it should not be a lottery."
Median jury compensatory awards have continued to shrink in Texas, from $23,150 in 2000 to $12,000 in 2003, according to Pennsylvania-based Jury Verdict Research, which tracks large jury awards nationwide. Texas' median jury award in 2003 was less than a third of the national median, the organization reports.
Lowery said he successfully defended a client in Beaumont in 2003, and has handled numerous toxic tort cases.
He said he saw jury awards drop before tort reform took hold.
Changes in the law
In 2003, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 4, the most comprehensive tort reform bill in state history, capping non-economic damages in medical liability cases at $250,000 per claimant. Then, Texas voters approved Proposition 12, a constitutional amendment to protect HB 4 from legal challenges. Last year, Senate Bill 15 required medical proof from those claiming to have illnesses related to asbestos or silica. The bill also requires each case to be tried individually, instead of in groups.
Another reform in Texas includes limiting punitive damages to twice the amount of economic damages. Various iterations of tort reform have been adopted by legislators since 1987. More than 40 states have engaged in some type of tort reform.
Proponents of tort reform argue that excessive lawsuits drive up the cost of virtually everything, from cars to fast food.
But opponents of the current tort reform -- such as Sawicki -- argue that current laws have gone too far.
He said that under current laws, the $250,000 cap makes it cost-prohibitive to recover damages for the very young or the aged, either of whom have little earning power. One example he cites is the elderly in nursing homes. A lawsuit on behalf of an elderly person who dies of neglect in a nursing home might result in only a $250,000 jury award.
"When you do the math on it, the average expert in a case of moderate complexity will cost $20,000 to $50,000 -- nearly a quarter of the recovery," Sawicki said.
Factoring in the survivor's award and other costs, Sawicki said it's unlikely attorneys will pursue such cases.
Yet Jon Opelt, executive director of Texas Alliance for Patient Access, said the caps for non-economic damages don't preclude plaintiffs from punitive damages in cases where physicians were negligent, or recouping the cost of medical treatment and lost wages. The alliance is a coalition of doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, health care providers and medical liability insurers working to change medical liability laws. Before tort reform, according to the alliance, in Texas the average medical liability award quadrupled from 1989 to 1999, rising from $472,982 to $2,048,541, mostly due to a surge in non-economic awards.
"Damages were so high, they might have taken on a punitive nature," Opelt said.
The stronger tort reform laws have likely dropped the number of medical liability lawsuit filings across North Texas. Where 2001 saw 487 medical suits filed in Dallas County, 2004 saw 142, according to information compiled by the Texas Alliance for Patient Access.
Opelt said he believes lawyers are still adapting to the cap on awards, and that many potential suits were filed just before the 2003 caps took effect. He said the alliance expects the number of medical lawsuits to amount to two-thirds of what they used to be.
Dallas trial lawyer Don Godwin of the firm Godwin, Pappas, Langley Ronquillo L.L.P. said he believes that before the major tort reform took effect in Texas, nearly 65% of all civil jury trials were personal injury cases, and the rest involved commercial suits and intellectual property law violations.
Now, he estimates that only 20% involve personal injuries and the rest involve commercial litigation and intellectual property laws.
Godwin said the state laws limiting jury awards might have gone too far.
He said rather than limiting punitive and non-economic damages, the state should have passed laws banning plaintiffs from "shopping" for more generous venues, such as Beaumont.
"You would still have a threat out there, policing people," Godwin said. "If you've got a senior in high school (who is a victim of medical malpractice), I think it's a little harsh to say you don't have any economic damages."
A job too well done?
"I have to work twice as hard for half has much, but it's still double what I'm worth," said Fort Worth trial lawyer Chuck Noteboom, who has landed a $102 million jury verdict against State Farm Insurance Co. and a $250 million negligence verdict against a nursing home. But, he says, major jury verdicts have all but vanished.
"It's like winning the Lotto," Noteboom said. "You read about people winning, but don't expect any money when you buy a lottery ticket."
He said a conservative groundswell has risen against labor unions, Hollywood and trial lawyers.
"They've essentially legislated trial lawyers out of existence," he said of the recent tort reforms.
Sawicki said even defense trial lawyers are going the way of the buffalo, in light of a drop in lawsuits.
Southern Methodist University law professor Ellen Pryor said 93% of jury verdicts aren't affected by the award caps.
She said research that she has read indicates the tort system overcompensates in small injury cases and underpays in serious injury cases. She said the situation usually plays itself out in traffic accidents. Many drivers unknowingly take part in a sort of "lottery," where they find themselves and other drivers underinsured when in serious accidents.
"What happens if someone gets rear-ended ... and there's a serious brain injury, and another victim becomes a paraplegic, and the driver of the gravel truck has no insurance, or has a $1 million policy. Are you going to be paid off by the other person's insurance? That's the lottery. Because there's very little self-insurance."

Don't want to be sued? Change your name!

A doctor accused in more than 100 medical malpractice lawsuits in West Virginia has changed his name in Dothan where he lives.
Dr. John Anderson King is now Christopher Wallace Martin after filing a petition for a name change at the Houston County Probate Office on March 14, The Dothan Eagle reported Saturday.
His address on the petition is the same address for Dothan attorney Richard Crum, who defended King in 1999 after the Jackson County Hospital in Marianna, Fla. accused him of stealing a medical logbook.
King agreed to a pretrial order dismissing the charge but requiring him to pay a fine and enroll in a supervision program, and left the hospital soon afterward.
Crum could not be reached for comment by the newspaper, which left messages at his home and office.
King's reason listed for changing his name on the petition was "identity theft by former co-worker."
King, who is licensed in 14 states - including Alabama - as an osteopathic physician, has led a career plagued with problems.
King's tenure at Putnam General Hospital in Hurricane, W.Va., lasted from December 2002 until June 2003.
The Charleston Gazette in West Virginia cited records showing King conducted more than 500 surgeries during that time, costing more than $7 million. He was suspended after a peer review of his surgeries concluded many of them were "unnecessary."
Most of the medical malpractice complainants claim chronic pain since King operated on them, according to the report. Others claim non-sterile instruments were used in the surgeries.
The Gazette also chronicled King's problems while practicing in Jasper, Ala., Oklahoma City and Marianna. He and a hospital in Jasper settled a medical malpractice suit for $550,000 in 1994 after a woman became a paraplegic following spinal anesthesia administered by King.
He and two other doctors paid a $250,000 settlement in 2000 to a man who claimed medical problems following an operation at Jackson County Hospital. In 1995, he was fired from Hillcrest Health Center in Oklahoma City.
The Alabama Board of Medical Examiners also reprimanded King on Feb. 4 of this year, assessing a fine and ordering him to take a course on medical ethics, the Eagle reported.
King has not been found to have made any false statements on his name change petition, according to Houston County Probate Judge Luke Cooley.
The probate office confirmed that King had been living at the same address for at least four weeks before applying for the name change.
He also indicated on his petition that he did not have any outstanding judgments against him and had not been convicted of a felony. He indicated he was involved in pending litigation in West Virginia relative to former employment there.
Cooley said there is no requirement to do background checks on people who request name changes.

AMA Muzzles Doctors as Witnesses - the "White Wall"

The "White Wall"
A new code of conduct is taking hold of the medical profession: First do no harm—to your colleagues.
DR. GARY LUSTGARTEN, A FLORIDA NEUROSURGEON, testified in 1998 that mistakes by doctors in Fayetteville, N.C., led to the death of a 19-year-old patient, Michael Hardin. Hardin had depended on a shunt to drain fluid from his brain since he was a child, and the shunt became clogged. In 1995, he went to the Cape Fear Valley Medical Center for emergency surgery to have it repaired. Within hours of the surgery, he had a heart attack. He died 18 days later. His mother sued the hospital and the surgeons who treated him. In the ensuing trial, Lustgarten stated that the repair did not clear the blockage, faulting the medical staff for not more closely monitoring the pressure on the young man's brain. Lustgarten suggested that Dr. Bruce Jaufmann, one of the surgeons, may have "falsified medical records to protect his associate" when he wrote that fluid did not spurt out of the shunt during surgery, which would have indicated too much pressure on the brain. The case settled for more than $2 million, and the family abandoned their claim against Jaufmann as part of the settlement. Four years later, though, a still-angry Jaufmann filed a complaint against Lustgarten with the North Carolina Medical Board, alleging that it was Lustgarten who had "testified falsely" at trial. The North Carolina medical board rarely revokes the license of any doctor, much less one who has not hurt anyone or committed any criminal offense. In 2001 and 2002, the board allowed five physicians to continue practicing even after they were found to have compromised patient care, abused drugs, sexually abused patients, or engaged in violent behavior. Lustgarten was not so lucky. In 2002, the board held a hearing without him or his attorney, as Lustgarten had been subpoenaed to testify in court in another state on the same day. On the strength of statements from Jaufmann, his lawyer, and another expert witness, the medical board charged Lustgarten with giving "disparaging, demeaning, or impertinent responses" on the stand and "totally unsubstantiated, inflammatory" testimony. It revoked Lustgarten's license, the first time that any state medical board revoked a doctor's license for giving court testimony. Lustgarten's lawyer, Seth Cohen, argued that his client's testimony was not fraudulent and that it constituted protected free speech. He pointed out that Lustgarten hadn't been the only expert to testify that Hardin's doctor was negligent. And even if he was, Cohen added, "there will always be a battle of the experts" in malpractice cases. A state judge reversed five of the board's six claims against Lustgarten, and last November the board voted to suspend Lustgarten's license for a year rather than revoke it. Medical malpractice trials involve competing accounts of expert witnesses. If doctors refuse to testify or are prevented from doing so for plaintiffs, lawsuits cannot go forward. In 14 states, a physician must verify that a lawsuit has merit before it can be filed, and it's nearly impossible in most other states to advance to trial without an expert. At the federal level, the Supreme Court in the 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case toughened the standards for judges vetting expert witness testimony. That rule, which has been adopted by most states, represented a major victory for the American Medical Association, which filed a brief in support of stricter controls on expert witnesses, arguing that judges weren't keeping "junk science" out of the courtroom. As the medical establishment has made tort reform—and restrictions on medical malpractice lawsuits—its top legislative priority, it has gone beyond seeking to limit who can testify as expert witnesses and taken steps to muzzle them altogether. Professional medical organizations have strongly discouraged members from testifying on behalf of plaintiffs. A new nonprofit organization, the Coalition and Center for Ethical Medical Testimony, or CCEMT, was set up to educate the public about what it terms "hired guns." The sum of these efforts is that doctors like Lustgarten are finding their careers on the line for taking the witness stand. DOCTORS DON'T LIKE TO TESTIFY against their colleagues. They rely on each other for professional guidance and patient referrals, so speaking out against colleagues can cost them associates and impact their bottom line. But self-interest is not the only, or even primary, reason for their reticence. Many doctors believe that genuine malpractice is rare. In 1988, Harvard researchers found that most of the 47 physicians they polled were reluctant to label substandard care as negligent, and they generally didn't believe that victims of that inferior care deserved compensation. Expert witnesses willing to pass judgment on another doctor are therefore a scarce commodity, and they can charge a high price for their services. A good witness can earn as much as $750 an hour, plus travel expenses that can range from $2,000 to $10,000 a day. Lawyers have a particularly hard time finding a doctor to testify against another doctor in the same town. The predicament led Barry Boughton, a retired Michigan attorney who now volunteers for the advocacy group Public Citizen, to use experts from the medical school faculty at the University of Michigan as witnesses. The faculty tended to be more outspoken because they were more insulated from peer pressure and often had to repair damage done by doctors getting sued. "Initially, they felt it was their obligation to speak out," Boughton said. But worried that in-state testimony could affect patient referrals from around the state, the university contemplated barring faculty from testifying in such cases, Boughton said. The school decided not to enact such a policy but, despite repeated calls, would not explain why. Seeking to reduce litigation, the medical establishment has long tried to prevent doctors from testifying. In 1998, the AMA declared that testifying as an expert amounted to the practice of medicine and could be regulated by state medical boards. As a result, doctors can now be sanctioned for what they say in a courtroom. The AMA also encourages its members to report instances of allegedly fraudulent testimony to those boards. As a result, more and more medical societies have begun to sanction members with penalties like suspension or revocation of their society membership. They have focused their energies on doctors who aid plaintiffs' attorneys. As the American Society of Anesthesiologists newsletter declared in 2002, when it comes to doctors working as experts, "As a rule, defense work is good, and plaintiffs' work is bad." These professional penalties effectively control expert testimony, because few lawyers want to hire a doctor censured as a witness by his own professional organization. Yet there is scant evidence that doctors targeted by these organizations have lied on the stand. One of the most active medical societies on this front is the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. Since AANS set up the nation's first professional conduct review board to examine expert testimony in 1983, it has reviewed the cases of some 50 physicians. It has stripped several doctors of their membership after they testified on behalf of plaintiffs in malpractice cases and suspended many others, including Lustgarten. Other groups are now following suit. The medical societies have been emboldened by the case of Donald Austin, a Detroit neurologist. In a trial involving a plaintiff who had suffered a paralyzed vocal cord during cervical fusion surgery, Austin testified that "a majority of neurosurgeons" would agree that the surgeon had been careless. The jury disagreed with his conclusion and found for the defendant doctor, who later filed a complaint with AANS against Austin. The AANS suspended Austin for violating the society's conduct code by giving unethical testimony. Austin sued the group, alleging that he had lost $150,000 in annual income from expert-witness fees as a result of the society's action, which he characterized as "revenge" for his testimony against a fellow neurosurgeon. The trial court dismissed the case on the grounds that the court didn't have the power to interfere with the internal operations of a private association. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision and endorsed the AANS's peer review system. "The Association had an interest . . . in Austin's not being able to use his membership to dazzle judges and juries and deflect the close and skeptical scrutiny that shoddy testimony deserves," wrote Judge Richard Posner. "This kind of professional self-regulation rather furthers than impedes the cause of justice." The Supreme Court chose not to hear Austin's appeal. Medical groups insist that their regulation of expert witnesses is motivated by science, but some of their actions suggest otherwise. Austin's attorneys, for instance, discovered that the AANS had never sanctioned a doctor who had testified for the defense. The group also has no mechanism for anyone outside the AANS to bring an ethics charge against a member. That means plaintiffs who believe their cases have been compromised by a deceptive witness for the defense cannot pursue the same kind of sanctions that the AANS has applied to plaintiffs' witnesses. The Florida Medical Association openly discourages doctors from testifying on behalf of patients injured by doctors, telling members that their names will be posted in area hospitals if they appear as witnesses in malpractice cases. A director of the Florida College of Emergency Physicians has gone a step further, creating a website posting the names of doctors who testify. North Carolina will allow only doctors licensed in the state to give expert testimony. Medical groups in other states are pursuing similar provisions in order to block the flow of unfavorable out-of-state witnesses. Such rules could be devastating for injured patients. "It would make it virtually impossible to find an expert," said Boughton. Some doctors have also formed a new insurance company, Medical Justice, to provide resources for doctors to countersue other doctors and lawyers involved in lawsuits against them. The CCEMT represents the latest and most aggressive attack on expert witnesses. It was founded last summer by Dr. A. Bernard Ackerman, a New York dermatologist who settled a medical malpractice case in 2000 for $2.7 million. Ackerman was accused of failing to correctly diagnose a biopsy slide as cancerous; the plaintiff, Lilly Dubin, died during the trial. Despite conceding at trial that he did not review the entire slide, Ackerman launched a crusade to discredit four of the doctors who served as experts for Dubin—and to appeal the verdict against him in the court of professional opinion. He sent off a flurry of missives to medical boards, prosecutors, professional societies, and the high-profile lawyer Alan Dershowitz. In those letters, he accused Dubin's experts—including Dr. DuPont Guerry IV, a world-renowned authority on melanoma at the University of Pennsylvania medical school who had been the plaintiff's oncologist, and Dr. Milton Okun, a clinical professor of pathology at Boston University School of Medicine—of lying and engaging in "shockingly unethical behavior." Ackerman's organization, the first to focus exclusively on expert witnesses, contends that courtrooms are rife with charlatans. Ackerman said that his own experience as an expert witness revealed to him that "many of my colleagues didn't just judge the truth, but lied outright." When pressed for examples of such frauds, he referred to a case in North Carolina where he alleges that a dermatologist falsely claimed that the standard of care had been breached. He insisted that the expert "is a scoundrel and everyone knows it" but refused to give out the name of the case, the doctor, the expert, or the lawyer involved—because Ackerman himself is a hired witness for the defense. He has also accused Okun, one of Dubin's experts, of lying in a second case involving one of Ackerman's protégées. Okun denied the charge and said of CCEMT: "It's a massive attempt by doctors to limit patients' rights." PLAINTIFFS' LAWYERS AND INJURED PATIENTS are feeling the pinch. Last spring, for instance, Florida attorney Gary Friedman was about to go to trial in the case of Cristine Del Cueto, who was crippled at age 3 in 1995 during brain surgery at New York's Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center. His key expert witness was Dr. Robert Rand, a respected neuro-oncologist. Rand planned to testify that the neurosurgeon who operated on the toddler was negligent when he cut the main blood vessel to her brain during delicate surgery on her optic artery. But in March 2003, one month before the trial was slated to begin, Rand withdrew from the case. The AANS had suspended Rand for a year for testifying on behalf of an 11-year-old boy in the Midwest who had been thrown from his scooter and died. Rand had stated that the doctor treating the little boy could have saved his life by administering cortisone, which would have reduced swelling in his brain. The doctor who was sued filed a complaint with AANS arguing that Rand was wrong, and the society agreed. According to Friedman, the group had sent Rand a letter instructing him "to discontinue expert testimony for the plaintiffs or risk membership." AANS denied that it sent such a letter. Rand felt he had no choice but to withdraw from Del Cueto's case. Because the defendant was so well known—he had trained many of the country's cadre of pediatric neurosurgeons—Friedman could not find a single doctor in the country or overseas who was both an expert and willing to testify. "Everything was ready to go, and then this organization came in and said no," said Cristine's father, Ricardo Del Cueto. "You start wondering, can my daughter ever get a fair trial? Is it worth it? You're kind of pushed down a path to settle." He settled for an undisclosed sum.
by Stephanie Mencimer
In Boston, Doctors now must clear and get approval from Hospital Attorneys before they are engaged as experts!

Citizen Advocacy Group Started in Denver

The Denver-based, consumer-advocacy group Colorado Citizens forAccountability, held its first press conference and legal symposium Fridayafternoon. CCA Founder Patty Skolnik spoke before nearly 120 people as part of aweekend dedicated to medical malpractice victims and the protection of theAmerican Civil Justice System.
"We will speak out for those who have no voice," Skolnik said, referring tothose left injured through medical mistakes.DU Law professor Tom Russell served as host during the afternoon event. Heshattered several myths about the Tort Reform movement by explaining thatthe vast majority of citizens injured by companies, corporations orindividuals suffer in silence. Most never seek compensation through thecourt system. Only a small minority of those who take legal action prevail in court, Russell explained.

How Medical Boards Destroy Competition

Excellent article from the AIA this week:

"Physician pedophiles, physician sexual predators, physician addicts and drug abusers, psychotic and psychopathic doctors, as well as doctors who flagrantly endanger their patients with their medical treatments, are called before the medical board. If there has not been much media attention and the situation can be handled quietly by the board, the doctor may only have his license suspended. He may be placed in rehabilitation. Most, in time will get their license back and quietly return to practice. The medical board, like any good fraternal organization, will protect its own. The Catholic Church protects its priests. The medical boards protect their doctors.

There is one category of physician transgressor in particular the board will treat more harshly than any other. The major but unspoken mission of the state medical boards is to protect MDs from market competition.

The true purpose of this medical monopoly, like all monopolies, is to control the market. And it does so, as many would-be healthcare reformers have learned. Thus the state medical boards' greatest wrath is reserved for those doctors that dare to try innovations that may affect the medical marketplace. This fascist monopoly considers the healthcare marketplace its private domain. The physician dare not tamper with healthcare delivery. Innovations that may lower fees or streamline delivery of services cannot be tolerated by a system whose fundamental purpose is to uphold and increase its members' incomes and its political power.Medical Boards and the Destruction of CompetitionSoon after the medical monopoly was formed it began to push its agenda of destroying all competition. A well organized and funded nationwide purge of all non-MDs was undertaken. Over the course of the first half of the twentieth century this medical monopoly managed to shut down over forty medical schools. Their idea was to keep the number of doctors low in order to keep fees up. After WW II the medical monopoly started rigidly controlling how many of each medical specialty it would allow to be trained. So ophthalmologists, orthopedists, dermatologists, obstetricians, and others began to be in short supply. And of course when supplies are low, fees are high."

Bush: Kill the Messenger - Attack victims Lawyers

Last month in Illinois, Mr. Bush called for strict limits on medical malpractice suits, including a cap of $250,000 on what victims and their families could recover for non-economic damages. Non economic damages include physical and emotional pain and suffering. Also attcked would be Lawyers fees. Although only about 20% of Med Mal cases succeed at trial and Attorneys have to spend Tens of thousands even hundreds of thousands of dollars preparing them and advancing costs on behalf of the victims family for them, Bush would cap attorneys fees as well as victims awards so that any payment over $600,000 would limit the attorneys fee to 15%.

Lets call it what it really is Mr. Bush: a limit on citizens access to the civil justice system for crippled victims of incompetant doctors. Notice he does not propose a cap or limit to how much the suspended doctor can pay HIS/HER attorney! Nor does he propose sanctions against repeat offending doctors. He just attacks the victims access to Justice: Lawyers. Medical Malpractice cases have always been David vs. Goliath situations, now David is losing his sling: What lawyer would want to work 2 years on a case he has a 20% chance of winning, spend $100,00 in upfront costs he may never recoup, and be limited to a 15% fee on any payment over $600K?

Who is hurt here? Children and elder citizens, the most in need of protection. Why? Because with no lost earnings, the recovery is limited to "pain and suffering" and a 'hard' cap by Bush of $250,000. To illustrate why an attorney can't economically take one of those cases: An attorney might recover a fee of $65,000 after spending more than that out of pocket.

Limit substandard care, not innocent victims damages

In Massachusetts in the last 10 years, "one-fourth of 1 percent of all the doctors — 98 of the 37,369 doctors — accounted for more than 13 percent of all the malpractice payments, $134 million of the $1 billion in total payments," according to Nancy Achin Audesse, executive director of the board that oversees medical professionals there.

It makes sense that regulating doctors rather than lawyers is the remedy for the medical malpractice crisis. Limiting substandard medicine benefits everyone, while placing ceilings on lawsuit damages would potentially deny justice to the families of patients who have been permanently injured by negligent or incompetent medical professionals.

WHO WANTS TO BE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE MILLIONAIRE?

Ted Rall asks this question and answers it with facts to back up his argument that "The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office finds that the costs associated with malpractice--buying insurance and paying out damage awards--amounts to less than two percent of America's skyrocketing healthcare expenses. "Even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower healthcare costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small," the CBO determined."

"Of course, there's an easy way for a doctor to avoid malpractice suits: do a good job. Do no harm and you probably won't get sued. And the courts are good at throwing out frivolous lawsuits before they become expensive.
Contrary to corporate belief, patients don't undergo surgery in hope of striking it rich as the result of some medical mishap. And victims rarely sue. Those who do are desperate for justice and money to cover the additional medical care necessitated by their doctor's incompetence."

Bush stumps against victims rights

According to the American Progress Action Fund , President Bush yesterday pushed his plan to restrict justice for injured plaintiffs. The president claimed on behalf of the insurance industry "the prospect of big jury awards in medical malpractice cases was causing insurance rates to soar and doctors to abandon their practices." If you scrape away the overheated rhetoric and look at the reality, however, a very different picture emerges. His proposal would have no real effect on the cost of health care. The caps would " disproportionately affect " children and seniors who live on fixed incomes. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it also would " undermine incentives for safety" while at the same time making it "harder for some patients with legitimate but difficult claims to find legal representation."

Today's high premiums are a result of insurance industry pricing practices which gouge doctors. Consider: While malpractice payouts actually went down by 8.2 percent between 2001 and 2002, there was no corresponding decrease in doctors' premiums ; the insurance industry simply pocketed the difference. The Des Moines Register points out, "There's simply no correlation between lawsuits and insurance rates. Rather, insurance rates are tied to the climate of the stock and bond market, where insurance companies invest much of their money."

A study by Weiss Ratings, Inc., showed that in 19 states with malpractice caps, physicians suffered a 48.2 percent jump in their premiums. Meanwhile, in 32 states without caps, premiums rose by only 35.9 percent. In other words, there is no connection between caps and premium rates. That finding was echoed by the Congressional Budget Office, which found there is " no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts."

The ironic point is that in oreder to be "capped", you must first prove that your damages are over the cap!!!! The cap just redistributes the burden so that the victim bears the "cost" of the doctors malpractice. I wonder if Bush would propose a cap in the following case: his stockbroker gave him negligent advise that he relied on and lost $500,000. Should his damages be capped at $250 too?

Some Doctors Stop treating Lawyers Kin

A South Carolina surgeon dropped a patient when he found out her husband was a lawyer. Nationwide, some doctors are using 'gorilla' tactics to punish lawyers, who they blame for rising insurance costs, instead of blaming the doctors who are negligent or the insurance companies who are gouging dosctors. The Goverment Congessional Budget Office has already reported a drop in malpractice claims since 2001 which coincides with the collapse of the stock market. The rise in rates of up to 30% can be directly related to insurance companie stock market declines, not higher plaintiffs verdicts. Click here for more Jury statistics. The average award for all types of successful plaintiffs in state court has fallen from $65,000 in 1992 to $37,000 in 2001.

Judge Orders N.J. Med-Mal Data Made Public

New Jersey patients soon will be able to use a new state Web site to obtain information about doctors, including details about malpractice claims they have settled.

The release of the information cleared a legal hurdle when a federal judge allowed the state to release the records. Public notification of malpractice payouts was signed into law last year by the governor, and was the subject of a lawsuit brought against the state by a daily newspaper, The Record of Bergen County.

Doctors had opposed a state judge's order earlier this year to release records of the payments, which are made by the companies that provide malpractice insurance. Doctors said settlements are neither admissions of negligence nor measures of competence.

U.S. District Court Judge William G. Bassler said withholding the malpractice payment records would mean people are "deprived of information that can be vital in making one of the most serious decisions in one's life -- one's health care.''

Data released by the state Division of Consumer Affairs showed that over the last five years New Jersey doctors' insurance companies have paid more than $890 million in malpractice payments.

Those payments were on behalf of 2,333 doctors, or a little more than 10 percent of the state's 22,000 physicians, the newspaper reported.

Doctors said lawyers often advise them to settle malpractice lawsuits -- whether they acted wrongly or not -- to avoid large jury awards. Conroy said the release of settlement information will prolong those legal battles.

The state-run Web site with details about doctors will become active June 23, which is when more information about the site will be available, according to the state Division of Consumer Affairs.

The site will contain information on the malpractice payouts, as well as physicians' schooling, specialties and any disciplinary action they have faced.

Judge Orders N.J. Med-Mal Data Made Public

New Jersey patients soon will be able to use a new state Web site to obtain information about doctors, including details about malpractice claims they have settled.

The release of the information cleared a legal hurdle when a federal judge allowed the state to release the records. Public notification of malpractice payouts was signed into law last year by the governor, and was the subject of a lawsuit brought against the state by a daily newspaper, The Record of Bergen County.

Doctors had opposed a state judge's order earlier this year to release records of the payments, which are made by the companies that provide malpractice insurance. Doctors said settlements are neither admissions of negligence nor measures of competence.

U.S. District Court Judge William G. Bassler said withholding the malpractice payment records would mean people are "deprived of information that can be vital in making one of the most serious decisions in one's life -- one's health care.''

Data released by the state Division of Consumer Affairs showed that over the last five years New Jersey doctors' insurance companies have paid more than $890 million in malpractice payments.

Those payments were on behalf of 2,333 doctors, or a little more than 10 percent of the state's 22,000 physicians, the newspaper reported.

Doctors said lawyers often advise them to settle malpractice lawsuits -- whether they acted wrongly or not -- to avoid large jury awards. Conroy said the release of settlement information will prolong those legal battles.

The state-run Web site with details about doctors will become active June 23, which is when more information about the site will be available, according to the state Division of Consumer Affairs.

The site will contain information on the malpractice payouts, as well as physicians' schooling, specialties and any disciplinary action they have faced.

Judge Orders N.J. Med-Mal Data Made Public

New Jersey patients soon will be able to use a new state Web site to obtain information about doctors, including details about malpractice claims they have settled.

The release of the information cleared a legal hurdle when a federal judge allowed the state to release the records. Public notification of malpractice payouts was signed into law last year by the governor, and was the subject of a lawsuit brought against the state by a daily newspaper, The Record of Bergen County.

Doctors had opposed a state judge's order earlier this year to release records of the payments, which are made by the companies that provide malpractice insurance. Doctors said settlements are neither admissions of negligence nor measures of competence.

U.S. District Court Judge William G. Bassler said withholding the malpractice payment records would mean people are "deprived of information that can be vital in making one of the most serious decisions in one's life -- one's health care.''

Data released by the state Division of Consumer Affairs showed that over the last five years New Jersey doctors' insurance companies have paid more than $890 million in malpractice payments.

Those payments were on behalf of 2,333 doctors, or a little more than 10 percent of the state's 22,000 physicians, the newspaper reported.

Doctors said lawyers often advise them to settle malpractice lawsuits -- whether they acted wrongly or not -- to avoid large jury awards. Conroy said the release of settlement information will prolong those legal battles.

The state-run Web site with details about doctors will become active June 23, which is when more information about the site will be available, according to the state Division of Consumer Affairs.

The site will contain information on the malpractice payouts, as well as physicians' schooling, specialties and any disciplinary action they have faced.