Want Tort Reform Now? Here Is A Form That Will Give It To You!

If you are one of those politicians or pundits constantly railing about the need for tort reform to protect doctors and hospitals, there is no need to wait for the government to pass tort reform.  Here is a form that will allow you to accomplish the same thing for you and your family RIGHT NOW.

That's right, by signing this simple form, you can waive your and your family's rights to pursue a claim for malpractice against your healthcare provider in court and limit your recovery, regardless of how serious your injuries are. 

So, if you are truly for tort reform, go ahead and sign it.  I dare you.

hp

ps.  Here is is again, just so you know I'm serious.

Don't Want To Get Sick? Don't Go Here....(hint, it's the last place you'd guess)

A couple of years ago two Louisville medical malpractice lawyers sued Jewish Hospital alleging it was unsanitary and led to people getting MRSA. A recent study now shows that hospital acquired infections are costing people big money.

Ohio Doctors Get Immunity From Malpractice Suits

Kentucky malpractice attorneys are fortunate not to have to deal with laws similar to those in Ohio that now give doctors immunity from malpractice if they have a medical student in the room with them.

Louisville MD Suspended for touching....

A Louisville doctor practicing in the south-end has given up his license after several patients accuse him of fondling, inappropriate sexual comments and, in one case, sex in an exam room.

Part II: The REAL TRUTH About Medical Malpractice Verdicts in Kentucky

Seems my recent post about medical malpractice verdicts in Kentucky got at least one reader stirred up enough to post a comment telling me I was wrong.  Well.... I'm not. 

Kentucky doctors are not leaving the state because of medical malpractice suits (net loss of 19 doctors between 2000 and 2002).  And medical malpractice premiums are not a large part of physician's overhead (less that 4% of revenue goes to insurance--physician salaries are 63% of overhead). 

But those who want to limit injured patient's rights have never let the facts stand in their way.  The phrase "sometimes wrong, but never in doubt comes to mind." 

If your really want to know the truth about medical malpractice in Kentucky, read this report authored by an independent non-profit organization founded by Ralph Nader, Public Justice.  Here is the report: www.citizen.org/documents/KY_MedMal_Report.pdf

hans

The REAL TRUTH About Medical Malpractice Verdicts in Kentucky

I am so tired of uninformed people telling me that we need tort reform in Kentucky to keep good doctors in the state. Too many people wrongly believe that juries are shoveling money at injured patients like the government bailing out the auto makers. 


Think I'm making this up?  Well, here are the actual statistics in kentucky on medical malpractice cases from the Kentucky Trial Court Review 2008.

In 2008, fifty-six medical malpractice cases were tried.  The patient prevailed 11 times.  That means the healthcare provider won 45 times.  You don't need to be a statistics major to do the math.  If you were a patient in a med mal lawsuit in Kentucky in 2008, you had about a 19.6%  you would win at trial.  Heck, you'd be better of taking the $100,000 - $200,000 it takes to get a medical malpractice case to trial over to the boat and play blackjack.  At least in blackjack the House only has an 8% advantage over the player.  Or better yet, bet it all on black in roulette, you have a 47% chance of winning.


   Some of you may be asking, "Is gambling really a proper analogy for going to trial in a medical malpractice case?"  Sure it is, in the few cases that the plaintiffs won, the juries awarded a total of $26,785,227 (this is in the entire state of Kentucky)  divide that number by the number of trials, (56) and the average verdict was $478,307.  So, if I told you I was going to give you $100,000 in cash (the amount of money it would take to get a medical malpractice case to trial) and gave you the option of going to trial were you have a 19.6% chance of winning an average of $478,000, or taking it to Caesar's and betting it all on black were you have a 47% chance of winning, where would the smart money play?

Please don't tell me our system of justice is a "lawsuit lottery."  There is no place for that kind ignorance when dealing with catastrophically injured patients.  Limiting the amount of money severely injured patients can recover does nothing to "fix" the system.  The system is broken alright, its just broken in favor of the healthcare providers.  And that's the REAL TRUTH.

Hans

State Legislator Tries to Make It More Difficult to Sue ER Doctors

Fortunately this isn't a story about a Kentucky lawmaker (but it very well could be considering who our senate leader is and the fact he has made tort reform one of his primary objectives).
An senior Arizona state senator is introducing a bill to make a emergency room patient prove medical negligence by a "clear and convincing" standard.
While this may not seem significant, it is.  In Arizona, like Kentucky, requires a patient prove a doctor committed malpractice.  The standard is "more likely than not."  Even with this standard, physicians win negligence suits 80-90% of the time.  The "clear and convincing" standard is significantly higher.  The standard is usually reserved for situations that go beyond mere negligence, were the plaintiff must prove the at fault party did something more than simply "make a mistake." 
If a jury were to have to find negligence by a "clear and convincing" standard, I hate to see how many victims of medical malpractice would go without justice.  I dare say a lot.
hans
p.s. want to know the difference between malpractice and negligence, check out our FAQ section

Louisville Hosptial Baptist East Cited By Medicare In Suicide Death

Medicare has threatened to stop federal funding to Baptist Hospital East following a patient's suicide last month.    State inspectors concluded that Baptist Hospital "failed to assure this patient's safety."  The patient has only been identified as a Jeffersontown (a suburb of Louisville) man whose son had passed away and going through a divorce.
The citation stems from the hospital's knowledge that the patient had expressed  a desire to drink himself to death and was depressed over his circumstances.  Even though two chaplains talked with the patient and concluded he was in a "critical and severe situation, the hosptial failed to place him in a psychiatric unit or under suicide watch.  The state determined that the hospital's failure to include steps in its written care plan to address his psychiatric concerns was a violation of its duty to its patients and such conditions "pose an immediate and serious threat" to patients.

Baptist will probably not lose any funding; however, this may not be the end of the issue for Baptist. 

These violations could lead to civil liability if the family chooses to file a lawsuit.  Hospitals owe a duty to their patients to proivde appropriate treatment, including protecting a suicidal patient from him or herself.  If a hospital violates its own policies and procedures- or fails to act like a reasonable hospital would in the same situation- and an injury or death results, the hospital is responsible for the harm.  Because the patient was only 56 years old, he was probably still working.  This means the man's estate can recover the reasonable value of what he would have earned over his lifetime (known as wrongful death) as well as a claim for pain and suffering (known as personal injury).  It is unclear from the article whether the man had any children under 18, but if he did then they would have a claim for the loss of love and affection of their father.  A child's consortium claim is measured from the date of injury through the 18th birthday.  The child's claim can be brought any time before his or her 19th birthday.  The wife also has a claim for loss of love and affection; however, it would likely be of very limited value for two reasons.  First, because they were already going through a divorce, it would be difficult to argue that there was any loss of love and affection.  Second, a spousal loss of consortium claim in Kentucky is limited to the time of injury until the time of death.  Here, that period of time would be only seconds or minutes.  Kentucky courts have held that a spousal consortium claim could not be brough in a case where the time between injury and death was only an hour.  Unless and until the law in Kentucky recognizes a spouse's right to claim a loss for the loss of love and affection after the death, we are severly limited in the claims we can make.  That being said, this exact issue is going to be addressed by the Kentucky Supreme Court in 2009.

hans