I am truly amazed, given all the discussion and press regarding health care reform, at the U.S. Senate’s failure to pass HB 3590. Known as ”lawyers cap fees,” this bill received little or no mention in the news media except for the weekly recap of federal legislation voted upon, as noted in the Dec. 13 paper.

This legislation would have limited the amount of contingency fees which lawyers could receive in medical malpractice cases and would have capped it at one third of the first $150,000 of the judgment, plus one quarter of judgments over $150,000. The vote was 32 for and 66 against, thus defeating this legislation and yes, both of our Pennsylvania senators voted against the bill.

Tort reform has been an item of discussion for the last 20 years and failure to address it is one of the major reasons for driving up the cost of medical care. Medical professionals are all being gouged by malpractice insurance to cover ourselves. Although it receives lip service during every political campaign, when the chips are on the table, the lawyers have their way and defeat any attempt to alter the status of tort reform. And yet the physicians and dentists are being accused of driving up the cost of our services so now we must ”reform” the way we practice. It is amazing that the legislators can dance around this issue when it is convenient for them to do so, only to stab the medical community in the back when the vote is taken; and further, that no press coverage is given to the issue. Continue Reading via The Morning Call

Submitted by Hal Williams, Broker at The Keane Insurance Group

Mississippi’s tort reform, passed in 2004, has helped reduce medical malpractice claims by as much as 90 percent.

Reform booster Dr. Kenneth Stubbs believes that more can be done statewide and nationwide.

“We need to see tort reform across the board, and unless there is uniform tort reform, there will never be a complete impact,” said Stubbs, who won the Natchezian of the Year award in 2008 for his tort reform efforts. “The whole nation must subscribe to this.”

Gov. Haley Barbour called pre-reform Mississippi the “judicial hellhole for jackpot jury verdicts.” The hellhole within the hellhole was Jefferson County, where a pharmacist was named in more than 1,000 lawsuits. In one case, a Jefferson County jury awarded $1 billion to the family of a woman who had taken the drug Pondimin, a weight loss remedy known as fen-phen that is now off the market.

Five years ago, Mississippi legislators put a $500,000 cap on pain and suffering or non-economic damage awards in medical malpractice cases. Stubbs laments that the change has gone unheralded. Continue Reading via PublicNuisanceWire.com

A Pennsylvania woman, Shanna Hiles, has filed a medical malpractice against Uniontown Hospital Fayette Regional Health System.  Ms. Hiles’ legs were partially amputated  after she was admitted into the emergency room while intoxicated.

Ms Hiles alleges the hospital was negligenct in her medical treatment and that the emergency room physician ignored her symptoms of acute compartment syndrome because she was drunk.

FULL STORY

A Georgia jury has awarded $3 million to the daughter of a 79-year-old woman who died after she was reportedly given a large dose of morphine. Although the decedent had a do-not-resuscitate order, the doctor deviated from the standard of care because he administered too much morphine too quickly and failed to notify the family, according to the lawsuit.

Janie Vinson was apparently so ill with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that, after an incident in which she briefly stopped breathing, the 79-year-old woman’s family told the medical staff at Albany, Ga.’s Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital not to try to cure her, but to simply keep her comfortable until she died, but a Dougherty County jury last month awarded her daughter $3 million for medical malpractice claims stemming from Vinson’s death in March 2002 after she was given what a plaintiff’s expert said was too much morphine too quickly.

An attorney for the doctor said they had not decided whether to appeal the verdict.

FULL STORY

Submitted by Hal Williams, Broker at The Keane Insurance Group

WASHINGTON BUREAU — A proposed addition to H.R. 3590, the Senate health bill, would encourage states to set up new systems for handling medical malpractice claims – but it also would let claimants opt out of using the new systems.

Lawrence Smarr, president of the Physician Insurers Association of America, Rockville, Md., says his group believes the provision would let claimants opt out at any time.

“Allowing claimants to opt-out of the new processes at any time is a serious concern,” Smarr says. “We are okay with an op-out provision as long as there is a point where both parties commit to the process… As currently worded, the provision would gut any tort reform the bill encourages states to implement. We are hopeful that it can be reworded during the conference process.”

The provision, contained in Section 10607 of the proposed H.R. 3590 manager’s amendment that was unveiled Saturday by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would encourage states to develop, implement, and evaluate “alternatives to current tort litigation for resolving disputes over injuries allegedly caused by health care providers or health care organizations.”

The provision would provide $50 million in state health injury dispute resolution alternative grants per year for 5 years. Continue Reading via National Underwriter

Residents of North Carolina are one step closer to being able to proactively avoid becoming victims of medical malpractice thanks to the state Medical Board expanding their online database to include record of such incidents.

The website, ncmedboard.org, now includes information on medical malpractice lawsuits, suspensions, convictions and other disciplinary actions against the 35,000 doctors and other medical professionals that are licensed in North Carolina, all of which now must be reported to the board by law.

Patients can search the database by doctor’s name or by city.  This is a huge step in the right direction for transparency and allowing patients to take back control of their own health care.  It is likely that there will be fewer cases of medical malpractice in NC now that this resource is available for residents.

Neither of the Obamacare proposals now before Congress includes a medical malpractice reform provision despite the fact that the public wants one — and that it would cut annual health care costs by $200 billion. A medical malpractice reform provision would protect doctors from expensive lawsuits filed by avaricious class-action plaintiffs’ attorneys who have driven malpractice insurance rates into the stratosphere. Judging by Federal Election Commission data on the political contributions of people associated with the top 15 class-action plaintiffs’ law firms, it’s no accident that malpractice reform is not part of health care “reform”: Trial lawyers are investing heavily in their Democratic friends who control the White House and both chambers of Congress.

Since Jan. 3, 2009, 581 contributions worth $1,261,023 have been made by donors identifying themselves as employees of the 15 firms (contributions by employees who did not identify their employer are not reflected in this data). Democratic candidates and committees received $1,241,978, or 98 percent of the total. The most generous of these lucrative sources of Democratic campaign cash was the Dallas-based Baron & Budd, best known for the late Fred Baron, who was finance chairman for former Sen. John Edwards’ 2008 presidential run. Thus far in 2009, Baron & Budd employees have contributed $212,958 to 21 Democrats, and not a cent to Republicans. Second on the list is the New York-based Grant Eisenhofer firm, with employees contributing $184,078 to seven Democrats and no Republicans. Of the 138 total recipients from employees of all 15 of the firms, 122 were Democrats and just 16 were Republicans. The Democrats received contributions averaging more than $4,700, while the GOPers averaged $646. Continue Reading via Washington Examiner

The Boston Globe reports that a Boston jury awarded $15 million to the parents of a 3-year-old Pennsylvania child whose 2004 death at Children’s Hospital Boston was the focus of a malpractice lawsuit. The jury found that former physician-in-chief at Children’s Dr. James Lock and anesthesiologist Dr. James A. DiNardo were negligent in the death of Jason Fox during treatment him for congenital heart disease. The lawsuit claims that the doctors lied to the Fox family about the treatments Jason was receiving at Children’s. The actual damages received will be less, due to an agreement reached while the jury was deliberating, but the exact number has not been specified.

An Arizona state legislator has proposed a ballot initiative to cap damages in accident and medical malpractice cases, the Arizona Daily Star reports.  State Senator, Jack Harper, said the current legislative and political makeup of the state will heighten the likelihood that such a measure would succeed.  However, voters defeated similar ballot measures in 1986 and 1990. The state constitution prohibits lawmakers from directly setting limits on jury verdicts.

FULL STORY

Dec. 18–BANGOR, Maine — A lawsuit filed by Robert Olszewski, of Dover-Foxcroft, who claimed he was attacked in August 2007 by a physician assistant in Mayo Regional Hospital’s emergency room, has been dismissed by agreement of all the parties involved.

U.S. District Magistrate Judge Margaret Kravchuk had recommended earlier that because of Olszewski’s failure to obey court orders and his failure to prosecute his case, the lawsuit against Mayo Regional Hospital and others filed in federal court be dismissed.

The Dover-Foxcroft hospital, Hospital Administrative District 4, Chief Executive Officer Ralph Gabarro and physician assistant D. Scott Simpson were named in the lawsuit filed by Olszewski, who sought unspecified monetary damages. Simpson is no longer employed by the hospital.

“Mayo has been vindicated by this dismissal,” Tom Lizotte, Mayo Regional Hospital’s spokesman, said Thursday. “The hospital has always contended that this lawsuit was without merit.”

Olszewski claimed he went to the hospital’s emergency room twice within 17 hours on Aug. 6, 2007, for pain in his chest, headache and fever and was not given appropriate medical screening. He later went to a Bangor hospital, where he was admitted for a mild heart attack.

Before he left Mayo Regional Hospital, Olszewski criticized Simpson and the hospital for what he felt was inadequate and poor care. When he did so, according to the lawsuit, Simpson “rounded one of the counters, ran toward Olszewski and dove at his legs.” Continue Reading via Bangor Daily News

Submitted by Hal Williams, Broker at The Keane Insurance Group

JACKSON, Miss. — Before Mississippi lawmakers passed tort reform that limited damages in civil litigation, Ronnie Lee Lymas’ lawsuit against the store where he was shot wouldn’t have gotten much attention.

That’s anything but true now: The case is being characterized as a test of Mississippi’s tort reform laws — hailed by business leaders and despised by plaintiffs attorneys — and a showdown over so-called premises liability issues.

Lymas’ lawsuit is now before the Mississippi Supreme Court, and those filing briefs in the case include the Mississippi attorney general’s office, Gov. Haley Barbour and dozens of trade and business associations.

Barbour, a Republican who has championed tort reform, said in a news release Friday that Mississippi was a “judicial hellhole” before limits were placed in civil litigation and a ruling that overrides those laws would be devastating for the state.

Barbour filed a brief in the case Thursday asking the state Supreme Court to uphold a lower court’s ruling that he said affirmed “the constitutionality of Mississippi’s non-economic damage caps.”

The non-economic caps put a limit on what juries can award someone for such things as pain and suffering.

Numerous business groups have also signed onto court briefs, weighing in on the issue of premises liability and whether businesses are liable for injuries to customers. Continue Reading via Associated Press

The North Carolina Medical Board has launched a web site to help consumers find doctors who have been found liable for medical malpractice or convicted of crimes, the News & Observer reports.    The new web site comes under a measure passed by state lawmakers in 2007.  Check out the new web site HERE.

In recent months there have been quite a few reported cases of radiation malpractice, enough to raise concern that it is becoming a little too common.  The most recent case, involving an Alabama woman, even has the FDA launching an investigation.

Becky Coudert went to Huntsville Hospital in September where she was diagnosed as suffering from Bell’s Palsy, which causes paralysis of the face.  In an attempt to confirm the diagnosis, Coudert was given a CT scan, a test that involves the use of radiation.

A few weeks later, she began having difficulty speaking and had blurred vision, and her hair began falling out.  When she went back to the hospital she was informed that she may have been given an overdose of radiation.  Not just a little overdose, either.  Coudert received 12 to 14 times what she should have.

It is unclear whether the overdose was caused by human error or malfunction of the machinery, but regardless, Coudert has filed a medical malpractice lawsuit and the incident has caught the attention of the Food and Drug Administration, who is also investigating the hospital.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the case is that the hospital in question may have actually administered too much radiation to some 60 patients.  These patients are being contacted as part of the investigation.

Radiation overdose can be quite serious and some of the side effects include:

• Hair loss
• Nausea
• Headache
• Infections
• Fever
• Vomiting
• Fatigue
• Weakness
• Erythema (redness of the skin)

Anyone who may have experienced radiation malpractice should contact a medical attorney immediately.

by Neil S. Siskind, Esq.
The Siskind Law Firm
www.Forinjuries.com

I was recently admitted to an emergency room with foot pain and tingling. The emergency room doctor ordered x-rays. After his review of the x-rays he advised me that I had degenerative discs in my neck which are the likely causes of my symptoms. I took the x-rays to my friend, a Physical Therapist, who scoffed. He said that my x-rays were fine and the doctor was wrong. Turned out that he, my friend, was right. So I saw another doctor who diagnosed and resolved my issue. By the way, that emergency room doctor gave me a pain medication prescription based on his misdiagnosis. By the time I left that doctor’s care I thought I had a problem I did not have, still had the problem I originally had, and was taking drugs I did not need. Pretty scary.

In more serious cases, a misdiagnosis can be deadly. Even in luckier cases where the proper diagnosis is eventually realized, there will be a slowdown on the road to recovery since proper treatment can not even begin without a proper diagnosis. The majority of malpractice cases involve the misdiagnosis or failure to diagnose a disease. There are four main elements that will improve your likelihood of getting a proper diagnosis: (i) find an experienced doctor whom you believe will provide a competent and thorough examination based on the symptoms he is hearing and who is able to properly interpret the results of any tests, (ii) ensure that your doctor is giving you time to explain your symptoms adequately and that he is being responsive and thoughtful, (iii) use a medical office or medical facility with the medical equipment necessary to thoroughly review your case, and (iv) get a second (or even third) opinion from doctors whom you trust and can rely on based on objectively sufficient medical credentials. When these elements are combined properly, it could determine the difference between life and death.

Knowledge and Experience:

First, a doctor needs to have the requisite education and clinical experience to decide which tests to order and whether to order them at all when working towards a diagnosis. If you fail to take the time to find a doctor whose opinion can be relied upon, you begin your search for a resolution to your issue with a severe handicap. Check into your doctor’s credentials and reputation before you put your life in his hands. Even after doing some homework you still may not know who your doctor really is and he may not do a great job. But as thinking people, we must exercise some judgment in these matters vs. throwing caution to the wind. Though convenience in terms of location is an important matter in your decisions to use any service, your choice of a doctor needs far more consideration then which doctor is the closest to your house. The first step towards getting the right diagnosis is getting the right doctor.

The quality of care in greater populated areas has a tendency to be more sophisticated than in lesser populated areas. The best doctors from the best medical schools with the most acclaim are more likely to be in Boston, Massachusetts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and New York, New York than in Minnetonka, Minnesota or Cape Coral, Florida. To be sure, doctors can be good for different reasons, including the time they spend with and concern they have for patients. But when it comes to a major condition, you want to be exposed to the more highly educated doctors in the larger facilities with the highest acclaim and medical resources. That’s my feeling anyway. Of course there will be exceptions where a renowned doctor is in a more remote area.

Listening and Responding:

You want to ensure that your doctor is taking the time and giving the focus to your symptoms and complaints. An otherwise excellent doctor who isn’t giving you his full attention or putting thought into your problem is of little use. Once the doctor gets results from any tests you took and provides a diagnosis, ask him what he saw in those tests that is driving his conclusion. Ask your doctor what his experience with this type of illness or condition is. Ask if he interpreted these results himself or whether he is going on the opinion of the lab technician. Mistakes happen in labs. Moreover, the lab technician may not be someone whose final judgment will suffice for you. Certainly, if you do not know this person, it should never suffice.

Most importantly perhaps, under the model of today’s medical system, short of a malpractice claim, doctors have little incentive, other than moral ones, to spend enormous amounts of time on a diagnosis. They are paid to dispense drugs, order tests and perform services such as surgery. If you “feel” like you were rushed out the door or that you were not heard or responded to in a comprehensible manner, then you need to see another doctor. While I do not believe that doctors don’t care about getting a diagnosis right and healing patients, some level of human nature comes into the mix, and without incentives to get it right and with incentives to perform surgeries and prescribe medicine, doctors are themselves handcuffed by having to make livings. That is part of the reality of our system. That is also where the societal value of the malpractice lawyer becomes indispensable.

Adequate Equipment and Related Resources:

The resources available to a doctor can also determine whether a proper diagnosis is reached. Doctors in small hospitals and in rural areas may lack the diagnostic tools needed to test patients using the most modern methods. Advanced equipment, and even up-to-date equipment, is not available everywhere. A big city hospital can provide more testing options than that one in a small town. Also, it is helpful when a doctor has an abundance of competent colleagues with whom to discuss issues.

In addition to any equipment and academic limitations, doctors may be handicapped by insurance companies. Just because a doctor wants a test to be run does not always mean an insurance company will pay for it. So if a doctor is being very cautious and willing to look at several possibilities, the patient has to have the financial ability to pay for the tests. Often this means insurance, and that can mean a fight.

A Second, and Third, Opinion:

Finally, the second or third opinion is crucial to a diagnosis. Backup opinions should come from doctors in different facilities than that of the doctor who gave the first opinion. Also, they should come from doctors of different specialties. For instance, if a surgeon recommends surgery, see another surgeon. But also see a Physical Therapist. In the case of an illness, after the diagnosis, see another doctor that works in this specialty, but also see a doctor who handles other medical areas that have a possibility of causing the symptoms- just to be sure. If you have a good insurance plan, it will cost you about $25 in the form of a co-pay to get another opinion. Isn’t that worth it? Just make sure that each doctor you see has the necessary credentials and reputation to handle your kind of issue. You must do your homework before you take medical advice.

The first step in getting better is getting a proper diagnosis of your medical condition. If you get that right, your chances greatly improve. If you get that wrong, you could get into trouble. The right doctor with access to the best resources and a second or third opinion together give you the best shot of receiving a proper diagnosis. The right diagnosis is the key to a possible resolution or cure. If this part goes wrong, short of the body healing itself, which often happens, you are fighting an uphill, and perhaps un-winnable battle.

If you have been given a misdiagnosis that has lead to an enhanced illness or unnecessary treatment that has harmed you, contact The Siskind Law Firm today to learn about the compensation to which you may be entitled.

The Siskind Law Firm
1385 Broadway, 24th FL
New York, NY 10018
Tel: 646.530.0006
wwww.Forinjuries.com
We offer a special Estate Planning discount to our personal injury and medical malpractice clients.

by Neil S. Siskind, Esq.
The Siskind Law Firm, Partner
www.Siskindlawfirm.com

The old saying goes, “When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. People see resolutions to problems in terms of what they are trained to see. A boxer sees a punch as the resolution to an argument, a lawyer sees a lawsuit as the resolution to a grievance, and an army sees a gun battle as the way to resolve a land dispute. When it comes to doctors, they often have what I call Doctorvision, tunnel vision by doctors. They see the resolutions to problems in the forms of pills and surgeries. Doctors prescribe what they believe can help a patient based on their training. But their judgment can be exercised carelessly leading to medications and operations as the first resorts rather than the last. There are three reasons that doctors prescribe medication or surgery when other answers may be available. First, that is what they are trained to do. For a medical doctor to prescribe yoga in answer to a medical problem is blasphemy. That is not their job. Second, they may have financial considerations. Doctors do make their livings by being doctors. Third, we as a society demand fast fixes and immediate resolutions causing doctors to feel external and internal pressures to resolve medical problems in the most expeditious manners.

Many observers are increasingly concluding that we, as a society, are overmedicated. Less rhetoric is given to whether we are over-surgeried (my own term). But I believe that this idea will also come under increasing scrutiny in the media and in medical professional circles. I have personally been recommended for surgeries that I did not need. In fact, one of my health concerns for which two separate reputable surgeons recommended surgery was ultimately resolved by a 10 day cycle of Advil, twice per day. Surgeons recommend surgery as a problem-solver because that is what they do. Is a surgeon going to recommend that you buy a new car, take a relaxing vacation, or file a lawsuit? No, because they are not car salesmen, travel agents or attorneys. If you speak to a real estate salesperson in a neighborhood, it is her natural instinct to tell you why her neighborhood is the best. She may even actually believe it or may just convince herself of it. An Audi salesman may believe that the Audi handles better than the BMW. He may really believe it or may subconsciously convince himself of such because he has to. This is how he makes a living. In theory, doctors have a higher ethical standard before services and products are recommended. We as consumers have to ensure that this theory is followed in practice.

I am not trying to suggest that doctors have bad motives or greedy intentions. I am suggesting that as in any other aspect of life, doctors get caught up in their own work, their own abilities, their own training and their own way of seeing the world. Their minds are on medicine-and rightly so. But in that regard, they are susceptible to Doctorvision, seeing medical procedures and pills as the first best answers. Even where medication or surgery will likely resolve a problem, they may not be the safest route and maybe should not be the first or even second resolution attempted- unless there is an emergency.

When a doctor mentions surgery and you are not in an emergency situation, you need to get a second opinion. Then you need to do your own research to see what the options are before surgery. Speak to other kinds of doctors and see if they can offer other options as long as they have little risk of harm. When doctors prescribe medication, see if a natural alternative is available or maybe use less of the medication or use it for a shorter time period than prescribed. Often other answers take longer to achieve results and require behavioral changes, making surgery and pills quicker fixes. But surgery and medication come with risks and side-effects, and they may be risks you don’t need to take.

Your surgeon or doctor may be the best at what he or she does, and they may have the utmost integrity. But as human beings, we get tunnel vision and see things in regard to what we know and what we believe. When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Do your homework, check out all options on the table and protect yourself from the unintentional yet sometimes harmful results of Doctorvision.

If you have suffered a serious injury as the result of what might have been medical malpractice, contact The Siskind Law Firm today.

The Siskind Law Firm
1385 Broadway, 24th FL
New York, NY 10018
Tel: 646.530.0006
www.Forinjuries.com
We offer a special Estate Planning discount to our personal injury and medical malpractice clients.

Turner v. Stime

Another jury misconduct case!  What’s the deal with these Eastern Washington jurors?  Just follow the instructions!

The Turners were suing Dr. Stime and his clinic for medical malpractice.  Mrs. Turner was diagnosed with terminal cancer when in fact she had pneumonia.  The untreated pneumonia progressed to sepsis, which resulted in Mrs. Turner being in a coma and amputation of her left forefoot.  Dr. Stime’s own witness testified that Dr. Stime violated the standard of care in several ways during two appointments.  Despite this testimony, the jury returned a verdict favorable to Dr. Stime.  How could that happen?

The Turners were represented at trial by Mark Kamitomo, who is of Japanese ancestry.  Mr, Kamitomo was the only non-Caucasian involved in the trial.  Race was a factor in this trial unfortunately. 

Apparently some of the jurors were using racially inappropriate names when referring to Mr. Kamitomo.  In addition, one juror also made a comment about the verdict being appropriate given that the date was December 7, the same date that Pearl Harbor was bombed.  Based on a finding of derogatory comments and racial bias that affected the jurors’ objective analysis and thus the outcome of the verdict, the trial court granted the motion for a new trial.  Dr. Stime appealed. 

The right to a jury trial includes the right to an unbiased and unprejudiced jury.  On a claim of jury misconduct, a trial court has significant discretion in investigating.  However, Dr. Stime claimed that the applicable standard of review was de novo because the trial court’s decision was based on affidavits and not live testimony.  Division III did not agree and held that the standard of review was abuse of discretion because the trial court’s findings were based on its presence during trial. 

Under an abuse of discretion review, it must be determined whether the trial court abused its discretion by deciding that there was "sufficient misconduct to establish a ‘reasonable doubt’ that plaintiff was denied a fair trial.”  There was no dispute about the names used for Mr. Kamitomo and the Pearl Harbor comment.  The test then is if the conduct inheres in the verdict, the conduct cannot be considered which is explained as follows:

"In considering the affidavits filed, we entirely discard those portions which may tend to impeach the verdict of the jurors, and consider only those facts stated in relation to misconduct of the juror, and which in no way inhere in the verdict itself. It is not for the juror to say what effect the remarks may have had upon his verdict, but he may state facts, and from them the court will determine what was the probable effect upon the verdict. It is for the court to say whether the remarks made by the juror in this case probably had a prejudicial effect upon the minds of the other jurors."

Division III affirmed the granting of a new trial, holding that the jurors’ bias and prejudice did not allow for an objective view of the evidence.  The Turners were denied a fair trial and thus a new trial was granted. 

Submitted by Hal Williams, Broker at The Keane Insurance Group

Most politicians in Washington agree that the health care system in this country needs to be reformed. Their ideas of what needs to be done are quite different, however. I spend most of my time praising the left for its ideas. Today, I’m going to take a closer look at one of the major issues on the right: The need to reform the medical malpractice system. I’ve talked about this issue before once or twice, but this time around I’ll be making use of a recently published paper on the issue written by Dr. Brandon Roberts and Dr. Irving Hoch, which appears in the December 2009 issue of Health Economics (subscription required).

The basic idea from proponents of tort reform is that malpractice drives up costs both because physicians are forced to pay large sums–which increase with the size of jury awards–for malpractice insurance premiums and because physicians pull out all the stops in their diagnosis and treatment of patients in hopes of staving off a lawsuit–a practice aptly labeled “defensive medicine.” Limit the size of jury awards and malpractice premiums will fall. Create no-fault remedies for physicians and patients and the practice of defensive medicine will taper off. As a result, health care costs will grow at a much slower rate. That’s the argument anyway.

The real question, however, is how much potential savings are represented by medical malpractice? In a fancy econometric analysis, Drs. Roberts and Hoch examine the association between the number of malpractice cases per capita and the per enrollee Medicare Part B (physician visit) expenditures across a nationally-representative sample of metro and non-metro areas. Controlling for a variety of demographic characteristics, medical services, differences in state tort law, and general times–as well as site-level fixed effects (if you don’t know what those are, ask me later)–they conclude that medical malpractice accounts for between 2 and 10% of national health care expenditures. Prior studies placed this figure between 1 and 2%. So what gives? Continue Reading via Huffington Post

Submitted by Hal Williams, Broker at The Keane Insurance Group

Washington, DC, December 15, 2009 — The American Tort Reform Foundation today released its annual Judicial Hellholes®report, naming some of the nation’s “most unfair civil court jurisdictions,” including first-time “Hellholes” New York City and the appellate courts of New Mexico, which join perennials South Florida, West Virginia, Cook County, Illinois, and Atlantic County, New Jersey.

The report also cites several “Watch List” jurisdictions that are on the cusp – “they may fall into the Hellholes abyss or rise to the promise of Equal Justice Under Law” – in California, Alabama, and former Hellholes in the Rio Grande Valley and Gulf Coast of Texas, Madison County, Illinois, and Jefferson County, Mississippi.

Among the jurisdictions noted less severely as “other areas to watch” are Madison County neighbor St. Clair County, Illinois, Orleans and Jefferson parishes in Louisiana, and Clark County (Las Vegas), Nevada.

“Lawsuit abuse continues to have a negative impact on both the nation’s economy and its health care system,” began ATRF president Tiger Joyce. “Every dollar spent defending against a groundless lawsuit is a dollar that won’t be spent on research and development, capital investment, worker training or job creation. Unfortunately for those living in Hellholes jurisdictions during this economic downturn, it can be that much harder to find or keep a job and get critical health care services as employers and doctors are driven away by the threat of costly litigation.” Continue Reading via ATRA

Submitted by Kris Perkins, Broker at The Keane Insurance Group

(Crain’s) — The Illinois Supreme Court decided not to issue its ruling Thursday on the constitutionality of a state law that limits jury awards in medical malpractice cases.

The ruling was widely expected to come Thursday. The court didn’t give a reason for the delay or when it might release its opinion. Continue Reading via ChicagoBusiness

If your hospital organization continues to experience a shortage of OB/GYNs willing to take on high-risk patients or procedures, you’re not alone. According to a recent survey from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), professional liability litigation and insurance costs continue to affect the medical practices of OB/GYNs across the country.

Discussed at a forum on patient safety and medical liability in Washington, D.C., last week, the survey found that nearly 63 percent of OB/GYNs have made one or more changes to their practice because of the fear of litigation. Just less than 60 percent reported that the cost of liability insurance forced them to make practice changes.

The findings show a continued trend of impact that makes it increasingly difficult for women in many areas of the country to access some obstetrical and gynecological services. Nearly one-third of obstetricians reported that they have decreased the number of high-risk obstetric patients in their practices. One-fourth reported that they have stopped performing vaginal deliveries after c-sections (VBAC). Almost 14 percent decreased the number of deliveries and 8 percent stopped deliveries altogether, according to the 2009 survey, which covers the period from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008. Continue Reading via FierceHealthcare

More than four years since medical malpractice reform was enacted in Illinois, stakeholders anxiously await a state Supreme Court decision on its constitutionality.

In looking back, it was then-Governor Rod Blagojevich who signed the Illinois Medical Malpractice Act of 2005 into law on Aug. 25, 2005. The bill would have automatically become law the next day had the governor not ceremoniously signed it before a large crowd of doctors, lawyers, politicians, business people and casual observers at Saint Anthony’s Hospital in Alton.

The law caps non-economic damages — such as pain and suffering — for physicians at $500,000 and hospitals at $1 million.

The Illinois Supreme Court is expected to release its opinion Thursday morning in a challenge case that arose from Cook County, Abigaile Lebron, a minor v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital.

An against-all-odds legislative victory for medical liability reform advocates set the stage for the historic bill signing in 2005.

“A lot of Democrats don’t agree with what I am about to do,” Blagojevich remarked before signing the bill. And just as he lifted his pen, he even toyed with the crowd composed largely of medical professionals that anyone in the room opposed to his action ought to speak up. Continue Reading via The Record

What would you do if you could look up your medical provider to determine whether he or she had ever committed medical malpractice?  Would you utilize the service?  If the information were readily available, many people would.  Unfortunately, in Arkansas, such information is not readily available to the public.

Other states have much more transparency when it comes to the medical providers licensed to perform services in those states.  For example, in North Carolina, the public now has access to information related to “malpractice settlements or judgments and criminal records for its 35,000 licensed physicians and physician assistants,” according to the Raleigh News & Observer.

The information available includes “malpractice payments, misdemeanor and felony convictions, hospital suspensions and discipline by medical boards in other states.”  Obviously, this transparency is opposed by doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies, as well as by the defense bar.

The new addition to the Board’s website is in response to a new law enacted by the North Carolina legislature, which provides for the specific publication of settlements made after May 1, 2008, that exceed $75,000 and malpractice judgments entered on or after December 1, 2002.

Perhaps Arkansas will eventually follow suit in order to protect its citizens from the negligence of medical providers who have faced previous allegations of malpractice.  Certainly, allegations of malpractice and the subsequent settlement that a provider might enter into are not the same as a finding of fault, but at the very least, it would give the consumer the discretion to choose for himself whether to entrust his health to a provider who has been questioned by others in the past.

State Law Summaries:  Medical Malpractice and Reform