Alabama Personal Injury Blog - Medical Malpractice

AHA Advocates substituting good ole boys for juries

Pete Burns — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:14:53 GMT

The American Hospital Association is advancing a bizarre version of malpractice “reform”. It advocates substituting a local panel of experts appointed by state authorities for juries. So the state medical association would appoint doctors in each community to sit in judgment of doctors in their communities. That would be an effective way to curb malpractice suits! Suppose we gave the same opportunity to contractors, business executives, and drug companies? Industry insiders could be counted upon to reduce the cost of litigation to their comrades by shifting the burden of malfeasance to the victim. Heaven help us if we replace our venerable jury system with the good ole boy network.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Burns

Study Does Not Support Changing Med-Mal Tort System

Billy Cunningham — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:34:43 GMT

In December, 2008, the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) prepared a study paper entitled Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals. One of the issues addressed were proposals which seek to change medical practices by focusing on the ways in which patients and medical providers settle disputes about treatment. That is a fancy way of saying proposals to modify the laws about medical malpractice.

The study found that in 2003 approximately 181,000 severe medical injuries occurred in U.S. hospitals that were attributable to negligence. Only 17% of those patients chose to file a malpractice claim. Interestingly, the study reported that patients who did not file a claim may have been unaware that the negligence had occurred, or they may have been discouraged from filing a lawsuit because of the time, effort and expense involved.

In 2008, CBO estimated that healthcare providers are likely to spend more than $30 billion to defend against and pay medical malpractice claims. However, that money represents about 1.5% of national health expenditures and less than 3% of total payments to doctors and hospitals. The report goes on to discuss caps on award damages in medical malpractice cases and determined that savings resulting from such caps would reduce total healthcare spending by less than 0.2%. The bottom line of the study by CBO was that it had not found consistent evidence that changes in the medical malpractice environment would have a measurable impact on healthcare spending. With such a small percentage of the overall health care costs involved, you wonder why there is such a clamor for change? Could it be that insurance companies see another way to make even more money while denying the injured their day in court?

In summary, this study produced during Bush’s administration does not support a change in our medical malpractice system. The changes proposed all involve a federal type system. A federal system is contrary to what most tort reformers advocate out of the other side of their mouths-state’s rights. For example, in the two states where I practice, Mississippi has very restrictive punitive damages laws and Alabama has very restrictive standards of proof in medical malpractice cases. Why can’t the states control their own destiny over such a minute matter in the healthcare debate?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Billy Cunningham

Replace "Deny & Defend" with "Honesty & Apology"

Pete Burns — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:41:06 GMT

Tying “Tort Reform” to health insurance reform could benefit both the doctors and the patients. The typical victim of a medical error wants fair compensation not a lawsuit. Most doctors who negligently injure a patient would rather that their insurance company quickly settle the matter than go through a lawsuit.

The University of Michigan Health System started a policy of “honesty and apology” in 2002. CBS reports that the policy change has reduced claims from 262 in 2001 to 83 in 2007. Fewer claims have allowed the system to drop its malpractice insurance cash reserves from 73 million to 13 million. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/12/eveningnews/main5306072.shtml

Wouldn't it be appropriate to reduce medical malpractice litigation by encouraging insurance companies to pay legitimate claims? After all, that is why doctors buy insurance.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Burns

Misdiagnosis

Pete Burns — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:36:18 GMT

Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell is yet another anti consumer republican trying to shift the focus from insurance reform by pretending that problems in health care are the result of “junk lawsuits”. A well researched editorial published by a leading newspaper in McConnell’s home state points out that McConnell’s claims are contradicted by empirical evidence. Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader (8/16). So long as opponents of health insurance reform misdiagnose the cause of our problem they will not identify a cure.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Burns

Finding Quality Medical Care ... And Avoiding Bad Care

Pete Mackey — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:22:47 GMT

When a lay person calls me about a legal problem, it is generally a friend or former client. We encourage them to call us because, although we confine our practice to civil jury trials, we want them to get quality representation if their problem is outside our area of expertise. In southwest Alabama, we know who's good and who to avoid. Medical care is no different - most doctors and hospitals are committed to quality care, but there are some to avoid.

Patrick Malone, a trial attorney in Washington, D.C. who specializes in representing the victims of medical malpractice, has written a new book on this subject - The Life You Save. I read several pages of the first chapter of the book on Amazon. It looks like a must read. Mr. Malone demystifies the process of choosing a doctor or hospital, tells you how to communicate with your doctor and lets you know the types of symptoms that demand immediate treatment. Check it out. The title of Chapter One says it all - "This Book May Save Your Life."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Mackey

Medical Malpractice: Universal health care & shifting the cost of negligence

Pete Burns — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:32:28 GMT

We have approximately 50 million Americans without health insurance. Health care cost following an accident or illness is the most common cause of bankruptcy in the United States. Cleary this is a system in need of change. Congress and the President are proposing universal health care legislation. Carefully crafted this legislation could be as beneficial to society as Social Security and Medicare.

Rutgers reports that Representative Dave Camp, the senior Republican on Ways and Means, said in connection with universal health care legislation that Republicans would focus on limiting liability lawsuits. http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-HealthcareReform/idUSTRE56D6L120090714 That approach violates a fundamental belief of our society: people are responsible for their conduct. Relieving any negligent party of some or all responsibility for the harm they caused shifts the financial burden from the wrongdoer to the injured party. If I accidentally killed two of your cows what would you think of a justice system that only required me to pay you for one? A half a cup of justice is a half a cup of injustice.

Furthermore, shifting the consequence of negligence to the victim does nothing to solve the problems stemming from lack of health insurance. Malpractice awards are a minor component of health care costs amounting to less than 1% of the health care dollar The Medical Malpractice Myth by Tom Baker. The impact to the system of shifting the burden of malpractice to the patient would be minor but devastating to the injured individual.

Our leaders must resist political pressure to surrender the right of injured parties in order to obtain universal health care.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Burns

Medical reform

Pete Burns — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:04:55 GMT

We must be alert that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries do not further limit the rights of victims of medical errors to recover fair compensation. No one knows who will be the victim of medical malpractice but the insurance companies know they will be paying the verdicts. Consequently, the insurance and pharmaceutical industries will be organized in their efforts to shift the burden of medical errors to the victims. We all need to make sure that future victims of medical errors are not twice victimized.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Burns

Lasik surgery expert witness

Pete Burns — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:17:29 GMT

Some experts will say anything. The defense Lasik surgery expert, Dr. Woolfson, testified that he has performed approximately 70,0000 Lasik procedures without ever performing the wrong prescription. Even so, he testified that the surgeon who performed the wrong prescription on both of my client’s eyes did not fall below the standard of care!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Burns

Lasik Surgery: know your risks

Pete Burns — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:04:51 GMT

Lasik surgery is a highly profitable and consequently aggressively advertized medical procedure. Before you undergo Lasik surgery get all of the facts including the likelihood that you will develop Starbursts, halos, multiple images, night vision difficulty, or severe dry eyes. In a current case in which I am involved the surgeon used the wrong prescription on both of the patient’s eyes. In addition to having worse vision as a result of the operation after multiple surgeries she had many of these complications listed above. The defendant’s expert says these are all known risks and complications of the procedure. For a great web site with more information see http://www.lasikcomplications.com/index.htm

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Burns

Off Label Uses of Prescription Drugs

Pete Burns — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:50:00 GMT

Off label use is a drug is prescribed for a purpose, at a dose, or through a route of administration that has not been approved by the FDA. After clinical testing the FDA approves drugs for specific conditions and in specified dosages. The FDA does not control the practice of medicine. Once the FDA approves a drug it is now available for the doctor to prescribe for whatever purpose and in whatever dosage the doctor deems appropriate. It is common practice for doctors to prescribe drugs for conditions and in dosages for which the FDA has not tested the drug. The patient has a right to know if any drug which has been prescribed for him is being prescribed off label. Ask the doctor and review the package insert to make sure the drug you are taking has been approved for the purpose and in the amount prescribed for you.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Burns