Malpractice - adding all the names

[MPMD]

a few thoughts:

1. while it is highly annoying to be named in a lawsuit, i don't really think we want to live in a world where people can't kind of sue whoever they want -- hear me out. this usually happens very early in the process with minimal discovery. neither the plaintiff nor the attorneys really knows what happened at this point. discovery proceeds from here. how would we fix this problem? what would the law look like? very hard to craft fairly. imagine you were a victim of something like this -- maybe not malpractice maybe a truly shoddy product injury. would you want a law on the books that said "no manager or executive can be sued?" i don't think so.

2. if you are named in a lawsuit and you had almost nothing to do with the case you really have nothing to worry about. you should view it like a 5% market dip and ignore it completely. you might have to do a deposition that will consist of sitting there for a few hours saying "i don't recall." there is no way someone who saw the patient a year ago and has not ties to the case is going to lose a jury trial, not something to worry about. when people say things like "this has been hanging over my head for X years" i want to reply (gently and kindly) "you really don't understand how this works."

3. in my experience this kind of thing has zero effect on credentialling or your jobs in the future. you get a letter from your assigned attorney and attach it to your application and that's that. absolute WCS the med staff committee is going to conference call you and ask a few questions. i have one of these from residency and no one has ever blinked an eye.

[Random1]

a few thoughts:

1. while it is highly annoying to be named in a lawsuit, i don't really think we want to live in a world where people can't kind of sue whoever they want -- hear me out. this usually happens very early in the process with minimal discovery. neither the plaintiff nor the attorneys really knows what happened at this point. discovery proceeds from here. how would we fix this problem? what would the law look like? very hard to craft fairly. imagine you were a victim of something like this -- maybe not malpractice maybe a truly shoddy product injury. would you want a law on the books that said "no manager or executive can be sued?" i don't think so.

2. if you are named in a lawsuit and you had almost nothing to do with the case you really have nothing to worry about. you should view it like a 5% market dip and ignore it completely. you might have to do a deposition that will consist of sitting there for a few hours saying "i don't recall." there is no way someone who saw the patient a year ago and has not ties to the case is going to lose a jury trial, not something to worry about. when people say things like "this has been hanging over my head for X years" i want to reply (gently and kindly) "you really don't understand how this works."

3. in my experience this kind of thing has zero effect on credentialling or your jobs in the future. you get a letter from your assigned attorney and attach it to your application and that's that. absolute WCS the med staff committee is going to conference call you and ask a few questions. i have one of these from residency and no one has ever blinked an eye.

While I generally agree with your statement, the psychological impact and stress from a complaint along with all the process and time involved can be substantial, especially if you move during the process. The whole idea of naming everyone on the list is an abuse of the legal system

[MPMD]

While I generally agree with your statement, the psychological impact and stress from a complaint along with all the process and time involved can be substantial, especially if you move during the process. The whole idea of naming everyone on the list is an abuse of the legal system

the psychological impact and stress from being named in a lawsuit you had nothing to do with should be minimal to zero, if it's not you don't understand how they work. i'm not trying to nasty, this is reality. it's an epidemic of doctors not knowing how these things work. if someone pulls their money out during a market dip we feel comfortable saying they made a bad, emotional decision -- this is like that. i'm not saying that you didn't experience pain and suffering, i'm saying that your response reflects a lack of process knowledge.

it's not an abuse of the legal system, it's discovery, as you would effortlessly realize if you were on the other side. discovery is the foundation of all of this stuff. if your kid was harmed by a bad product you would want every one who ever touched that product hauled in and asked to explain themselves. again, tell me what a statute to prevent this would look like?

[Dusn]

Was not aware of the micra assault. Wow. If that goes away, CA loses the last good thing it has to offer.

Non-competes are still not enforceable there. But yeah, when a state passes a good law, you’d hope that other states would copy them. This might be the opposite happening.

[bovie]

If only physicians were united and their union threaten to leave a state when such bills are being passed , outcomes would be different .

I wish this were a joke, but I know that it’s not.

[bovie]

the psychological impact and stress from being named in a lawsuit you had nothing to do with should be minimal to zero, if it's not you don't understand how they work….i'm not saying that you didn't experience pain and suffering, i'm saying that your response reflects a lack of process knowledge.

Yup. File this in the “Solution = get a grip” cabinet.

[Random1]

my insurance company spent 80k, before I was dropped and it took 2 years in the process, so yes I know how it works,

[G]

Non-competes are still not enforceable there. But yeah, when a state passes a good law, you’d hope that other states would copy them. This might be the opposite happening.

We have a cap on pain and suffering...the rumor is that it will be under attack next session; apparently we also got a pass during the short-lived "healthcare heroes" covid phase. I guess we shall see what goes down in CA in Nov. Interesting approach to inflation adjust it all at once. I think they should adjust it using the difference in overall inflation and that of medical education. If it happens to come out to less than 250k (!), each successful plaintiff's lawyer shall be mandated to make up the difference by forfeiting a portion of their fees.

[G]

my insurance company spent 80k, before I was dropped and it took 2 years in the process, so yes I know how it works,

word!

[Sundance]

The “it’s a no big deal so stop being dumb about not understanding the process” comment is pretty lame.

Any lawsuit is a big deal. Some are obviously bigger deals than others but they all add to the nonsense that many of us have to deal with and still have real ramifications from an emotional/physical stress and even future credentialing. That’s more likely to impact someone who has a long career in medicine where things can just add up.

[Zaphod]

Listen to the podcast “the L word”. It has definitely made me approach things differently and I am much more apprehensive about all the litigation crap. Now with MICRA being repealed in CA, things are just going to get worse. With higher caps on payouts, more lawyers will take the bait of even long shot cases. Meanwhile reimbursements cont to slide…

something has to give. Doctors need a “union” where we have the ability and power to negotiate with Medicare collectively and to push against BS legal actions

They repealed MICRA? Yikes, Cali was high sue rate prior to that, they just rarely won, good riddance, that state is done for from that side of things.

And while it sounds hard I dont think it truly is that hard to dismiss folks that arent involved, I was on service in residency as an intern for the VA and it took over 5 years to get dropped, the dumber the lawyers (and this faction is increasing) or the more they try to just push for some entity to break and pay, the worse this gets.

It shouldnt be that hard to craft something that shows you were either directly responsible for the alleged issue or not, and be instantly removed, or moved to show merit. Thats not hard and makes sense but it doesnt make money im sure.

[FunkDoc83]

You never know how you will react until you are faced with the situation yourself. Like going through your first prolonged bear market. Having been through a case myself, I know the visceral type reaction it produces. What is stopping physicians from unionizing anyway?

[The White Coat Investor]

Yeah in my lawsuit (over a pt developing TD on a medication) they named a bunch of people, including the pts psychologist! Who obviously had nothing to do with the medication. We were all dropped and university named in our place but you are right we all have to explain it on credentialing for years to come.

No you don't. Only active cases, cases that were settled, and cases with a judgment have to be reported. Just getting named doesn't have to be reported forever. Read the credentialing forms more carefully.

[wideopenspaces]

No you don't. Only active cases, cases that were settled, and cases with a judgment have to be reported. Just getting named doesn't have to be reported forever. Read the credentialing forms more carefully.

The case was settled with a judgment. Against the university not any of us personally. The lawyer for the university did not say I didn't need to report it when I asked him for a synopsis of the case as requested by credentialing so I'm pretty we do have to keep reporting it.

[wideopenspaces]

Isn’t TD a side effect of many medications ?

If only physicians were united and their union threaten to leave a state when such bills are being passed , outcomes would be different .

Yep. But you can't get any money out of the drug manufacturers so I guess they did the next best thing. The case was ridiculous and no way to prevent the outcome but at least it is over now . . .