It's not the layman's terms, I'm saying that it's easy to convince the jury that the patient would have been better off without you; you have to show that the doctor did something that doctors generally don't do--that he or she either intentionally or negligently threw accepted medical practice out the window for this case and just basically didn't do his or her job.
As a lawyer, part of me wishes they'd completely outlaw medical malpractice lawsuits. It would be amusing to see what happens when med mal costs (which are currently maybe about 1% of total medical costs, with defensive medicine making maybe another 5%) are taken out of the equation, and medical costs stay about the same or go higher (and medical malpractice increases), how people will react without lawyers to blame. Every legitimate, peer-reviewed study of the subject shows that high medical costs in the US are mostly the fault of the insurance companies, and how (to address this article specifically) doctors themselves are frequently to blame for unnecessary tests because they get paid more for ordering them.
In a court of law the question to be asked "Was there a test to determine the problem with my client's husband that would have saved his life if you had done it?" That single question is the reason for all of this, because if the answer is "yes", which is always is even if there were no legitimate reason to run said test, then the doctor is guilty of malpractice
That's a complete and utter lie. The question is "is it standard practice in the medical community to run this test when confronted with these symptoms?" Far different question than if a test exists.
Enact tort reform, cap damages, and actually encourage preventative medicine instead of paying lip service to it and you'll get lower costs and better yield for the non-sick 999.
Medical malpractice liability costs make up about 1% of cases. Patients sue over maybe 5% of actual malpractice. The few studies on defensive medicine show it costs about 3%-5%.
Your notion that a medical malpractice suit can take "everything he owns" is kind of bizarre to be honest, I've never even heard of a medical malpractice case where a successful verdict wasn't paid for by insurance.
Almost is a pretty important word there. Statistics apply to populations; for an individual doctor, either you are sued or you aren't - and if you are, all that the plaintiff's attorney and his expert have to do is convince the jury that the patient would have been better off without you. The fact that you have prevented minor (but not fatal!) harm to dozens of other people by avoiding carrying out tests that turned up normal, prescribing medications that probably weren't necessary, etc., doesn't matter.
The burden in a medical malpractice suit (and it is on the plaintiff) is to show that there was a doctor-patient relationship, that the doctor violated minimal professional standards, and that this was a proximate cause of his or her damage. Showing that the patient would have been better off without you won't get you a penny.
Very little, honestly. Medical malpractice suits constitute a tiny fraction of the cost of medicine; most of the blame belongs to insurance companies. There's a reason even a solo doctor's office has 5 people behind the counter handling billing, and it's not the lawyers.
First, we know from the California study, as confirmed by more recent, better publicized studies, that the real problem is too much medical malpractice, not too much litigation. Most people do not sue, which means that victims—not doctors, hospitals, or liability insurance companies—bear the lion’s share of the costs of medical malpractice.
Second, because of those same studies, we know that the real costs of medical malpractice have little to do with litigation. The real costs of medical malpractice are the lost lives, extra medical expenses, time out of work, and pain and suffering of tens of thousands of people every year, the vast majority of whom do not sue. There is lots of talk about the heavy burden that “defensive medicine” imposes on health costs, but the research shows this is not true.
Third, we know that medical malpractice insurance premiums are cyclical, and that it is not frivolous litigation or runaway juries that drive that cycle. The sharp spikes in malpractice premiums in the 1970s, the 1980s, and the early 2000s are the result of financial trends and competitive behavior in the insurance industry, not sudden changes in the litigation environment.
Fourth, we know that “undeserving” people sometimes bring medical malpractice claims because they do not know that the claims lack merit and because they cannot find out what happened to them (or their loved ones) without making a claim. Most undeserving claims disappear before trial; most trials end in a verdict for the doctor; doctors almost never pay claims out of their own pockets; and hospitals and insurance companies refuse to pay claims unless there is good evidence of malpractice. If a hospital or insurance company does settle a questionable claim to avoid a huge risk, there is a very large discount. This means that big payments to undeserving claimants are the very rare exception, not the rule.
Finally, we know that there is one sure thing—and only one thing—that the proposed remedies can be counted on to do. They can be counted on to distract attention long enough for the inevitable turn in the insurance cycle to take the edge off the doctors’ pain. That way, people can keep ignoring the real, public health problem. Injured patients and their lawyers are the messengers here, not the cause of the medical malpractice problem.
More importantly, Fallout over Planescape (not even a finalist!), Doom 2 over Deus Ex or Thief 2 (hell, Doom 2 over Doom 1??), and no Ico under the Playstation section??
You're assuming all patent trolls have frivolous claims. A patent troll is someone who just basically bought the right to sue from the patentholder. The original claim might be valid.
Liberal Arts majors should be charged 100 times more then Science majors. We don't need another French Lit basket weaving expert in the world, we need people who can cure disease and find alternative forms of energy.
The average "science" major ends up doing absolutely nothing for the progress of science and/or technology. Ooh, pharmaceutical sales and PHP code monkeying, wow, those things are really going to create the future.
I would hire a classics major in a second if I had a position that needed filling (and, obviously, didn't require specialized skills); it's a lot harder than a lot of STEM majors, and if someone can master ancient latin and ancient greek they officially impress me.
Hard to believe, I know, but it's true; from an excellent article by a practicing lawyer and adjunct law professor (here):
Simply stated, law schools are university cash cows, contributing dollars to the university’s bottom line . . . Cash starved universities are only too
happy to take the funds generated by law schools and use them for their general purposes. Indeed, the universities have every incentive to keep the law school classeslarge and the funds from these larger classes flowing. Law schools, in turn, while sometimes complaining about forking over the money, nonetheless enjoy the prestige and power in their respective university communities that comes from the profit they generate and the funds they supply to the larger university, or main campus.
He includes several citations for this by the way. It's a great article, I would recommend it to anyone curious about the state of the legal education system today.
. If you're going to go into a lucrative field like medicine or law, your future earning potential is much higher so students are willing to rack up $150k in debt to get that education. (I should mention that the easy availability of student loans, as noble as they are in concept, is accelerating this process.
While medicine is still lucrative, law is not, except for a tiny percentage of law students.
I don't think "poor" includes a university education.
You have been tricked into believing that social class determines wealth. There are plenty of homeless people with college and graduate degrees; when do they start counting as "poor"?
Slashdot Mirror
It takes 5 people to mail an annual insurance premium once a year?
It's not the layman's terms, I'm saying that it's easy to convince the jury that the patient would have been better off without you; you have to show that the doctor did something that doctors generally don't do--that he or she either intentionally or negligently threw accepted medical practice out the window for this case and just basically didn't do his or her job.
As a lawyer, part of me wishes they'd completely outlaw medical malpractice lawsuits. It would be amusing to see what happens when med mal costs (which are currently maybe about 1% of total medical costs, with defensive medicine making maybe another 5%) are taken out of the equation, and medical costs stay about the same or go higher (and medical malpractice increases), how people will react without lawyers to blame. Every legitimate, peer-reviewed study of the subject shows that high medical costs in the US are mostly the fault of the insurance companies, and how (to address this article specifically) doctors themselves are frequently to blame for unnecessary tests because they get paid more for ordering them.
In a court of law the question to be asked "Was there a test to determine the problem with my client's husband that would have saved his life if you had done it?" That single question is the reason for all of this, because if the answer is "yes", which is always is even if there were no legitimate reason to run said test, then the doctor is guilty of malpractice
That's a complete and utter lie. The question is "is it standard practice in the medical community to run this test when confronted with these symptoms?" Far different question than if a test exists.
Enact tort reform, cap damages, and actually encourage preventative medicine instead of paying lip service to it and you'll get lower costs and better yield for the non-sick 999.
Medical malpractice liability costs make up about 1% of cases. Patients sue over maybe 5% of actual malpractice. The few studies on defensive medicine show it costs about 3%-5%.
Your notion that a medical malpractice suit can take "everything he owns" is kind of bizarre to be honest, I've never even heard of a medical malpractice case where a successful verdict wasn't paid for by insurance.
Almost is a pretty important word there. Statistics apply to populations; for an individual doctor, either you are sued or you aren't - and if you are, all that the plaintiff's attorney and his expert have to do is convince the jury that the patient would have been better off without you. The fact that you have prevented minor (but not fatal!) harm to dozens of other people by avoiding carrying out tests that turned up normal, prescribing medications that probably weren't necessary, etc., doesn't matter.
The burden in a medical malpractice suit (and it is on the plaintiff) is to show that there was a doctor-patient relationship, that the doctor violated minimal professional standards, and that this was a proximate cause of his or her damage. Showing that the patient would have been better off without you won't get you a penny.
Very little, honestly. Medical malpractice suits constitute a tiny fraction of the cost of medicine; most of the blame belongs to insurance companies. There's a reason even a solo doctor's office has 5 people behind the counter handling billing, and it's not the lawyers.
The Medical Malpractice Myth.:
Of course, blame the lawyers. The fact that doctors frequently get paid more the more they test has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Doom was also just a better game than Doom II I think.
Most gamers grew up on Nintendo, and thus tend to overrate Zelda and Mario games.
More importantly, Fallout over Planescape (not even a finalist!), Doom 2 over Deus Ex or Thief 2 (hell, Doom 2 over Doom 1??), and no Ico under the Playstation section??
You're assuming all patent trolls have frivolous claims. A patent troll is someone who just basically bought the right to sue from the patentholder. The original claim might be valid.
"This sort of thinking is what led to the lawsuit-crazy period in the '90s. "
Huh?? Do you have some evidence that lawsuits were more prevalent in the '90s as opposed to the '80s or '00s?
Oh noes, black helicopters!
That sounds like change to me.
Do you really think that's the total sum of internal correspondence?
Usually these kinds of subpoenas are looking for internal communications.
Liberal Arts majors should be charged 100 times more then Science majors. We don't need another French Lit basket weaving expert in the world, we need people who can cure disease and find alternative forms of energy.
The average "science" major ends up doing absolutely nothing for the progress of science and/or technology. Ooh, pharmaceutical sales and PHP code monkeying, wow, those things are really going to create the future.
I would hire a classics major in a second if I had a position that needed filling (and, obviously, didn't require specialized skills); it's a lot harder than a lot of STEM majors, and if someone can master ancient latin and ancient greek they officially impress me.
He includes several citations for this by the way. It's a great article, I would recommend it to anyone curious about the state of the legal education system today.
Ahhhhh...ok.
. If you're going to go into a lucrative field like medicine or law, your future earning potential is much higher so students are willing to rack up $150k in debt to get that education. (I should mention that the easy availability of student loans, as noble as they are in concept, is accelerating this process.
While medicine is still lucrative, law is not, except for a tiny percentage of law students.
Engineers make the school money
But not engineering students.
I don't think "poor" includes a university education.
You have been tricked into believing that social class determines wealth. There are plenty of homeless people with college and graduate degrees; when do they start counting as "poor"?