Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Malpractice - adding all the names

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by FunkDoc83 View Post
    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?
    Originally posted by FunkDoc83 View Post
    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?
    Physicians don't generally support one another. It's like herding cats. I don't think you'd ever get a big group of physicians to ever agree on a set of goals even if they would help everyone 🤷‍♀️

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by MPMD View Post
      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 .
      Can’t disagree with you more about this .

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by The White Coat Investor View Post

        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 credentialing or license paperwork I have seen in past clearly asks if you have been named or involved in a lawsuit or claim.
        Last edited by uksho; 05-10-2022, 05:06 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by uksho View Post

          Can’t disagree with you more about this .
          again, craft a workable policy.

          and don't think about it as an annoyed doc, think about it as an angry parent.

          i am seriously waiting on this.

          the only thing i can think of would be the physicians can't be sued individually, but i don't think anyone wants that either.

          if you can't see this from the other side you're not thinking about it hard enough.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Sundance View Post
            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.
            i'm not saying stop being dumb.

            i'm not calling anyone dumb.

            i'm saying learn what actually happens.

            doctors think some tribunal of named by Osler look at their one brief note and conclude that they are terrible physicians. that's not what happens. i think it's often a paralegal flipping through medical records and scribbling down names -- often missing some.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by MPMD View Post

              again, craft a workable policy.

              and don't think about it as an annoyed doc, think about it as an angry parent.

              i am seriously waiting on this.

              the only thing i can think of would be the physicians can't be sued individually, but i don't think anyone wants that either.

              if you can't see this from the other side you're not thinking about it hard enough.
              Not an attorney.
              The path would be a legal definition of “Frivolous litigation”. This not to be confused with Tort Reform (primarily caps).
              Based on a paralegal jotting down names, just including the name in an suit could be defined as “frivolous” and then lead to financial implications.
              From the other side, probably would need to be a “subpoena power” to require discovery without naming as a defendant. Naming someone without reasonable cause (difficult to define) could cost attorneys fees and a penalty (say $25k).
              That would drastically alter “frivolously” adding names to a claim. The attorney would think 2 or 3 times before just adding names.
              The definition of reasonable cause is the problem.
              Leave that to judge and jury. As you say, a paralegal jotting down a name .
              The checks and balances exist in criminal law, not in civil law. Why not?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by uksho View Post

                the credentialing or license paperwork I have seen in past clearly asks if you have been named or involved in a lawsuit or claim.
                I've been credentialed in multiple states and never been asked to include a lawsuit that was dismissed on the credentialing paperwork. If you read them carefully, they will generally only ask about settlements, judgments, and open cases.
                Helping those who wear the white coat get a fair shake on Wall Street since 2011

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by wideopenspaces View Post

                  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.
                  Some of us are on the credentialing committee I'm sure. Can ANYONE bring the paperwork you have docs fill out that shows that cases that are dismissed have to be reported? I've seriously never seen a form that requested that information and I'm not sure you legally have to provide it even if it is requested.
                  Helping those who wear the white coat get a fair shake on Wall Street since 2011

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by The White Coat Investor View Post

                    Some of us are on the credentialing committee I'm sure. Can ANYONE bring the paperwork you have docs fill out that shows that cases that are dismissed have to be reported? I've seriously never seen a form that requested that information and I'm not sure you legally have to provide it even if it is requested.
                    i have credentialled at 8 hospitals in my career and have only ever been asked about settlements, judgements, or asked if anything is pending.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Saying "it's no big deal to get frivilously sued" is SCORCHING hot take. Even if you feel 100% confident that the suit is unfounded, it takes time and money to defend. At the BARE minimum, the onus should be on the plaintiffs to prove that the allegations are within the scope of practice for the physician being sued. My colleague, a fellow ICU doctor, just finished a 10 year lawsuit alleging he failed to operate in a timely fashion for post-operative bleeding. Only problem, he's not a surgeon and never has been. The actual surgeon on the case settled years ago, but the plaintiff attorney kept dragging out the case on my friend looking for a settlement before he finally won in court. Probably spent dozens of hours and tens of thousands in lost wages defending himself against a case that never should have gone past "he's not that kind of doctor."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by pulmdoc View Post
                        Saying "it's no big deal to get frivilously sued" is SCORCHING hot take. Even if you feel 100% confident that the suit is unfounded, it takes time and money to defend. At the BARE minimum, the onus should be on the plaintiffs to prove that the allegations are within the scope of practice for the physician being sued. My colleague, a fellow ICU doctor, just finished a 10 year lawsuit alleging he failed to operate in a timely fashion for post-operative bleeding. Only problem, he's not a surgeon and never has been. The actual surgeon on the case settled years ago, but the plaintiff attorney kept dragging out the case on my friend looking for a settlement before he finally won in court. Probably spent dozens of hours and tens of thousands in lost wages defending himself against a case that never should have gone past "he's not that kind of doctor."
                        I’d be all for frivolous lawsuits if the defendant had some recourse against the plaintiff. When you commit malpractice, you risk your license to practice medicine. Shouldn’t the same apply to Medmal lawyers who bring these BS suits?

                        Also strongly agree that until you are staring down that lawsuit barrel, you have no business telling people to relax about it.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by DrRab View Post

                          I’d be all for frivolous lawsuits if the defendant had some recourse against the plaintiff. When you commit malpractice, you risk your license to practice medicine. Shouldn’t the same apply to Medmal lawyers who bring these BS suits?

                          Also strongly agree that until you are staring down that lawsuit barrel, you have no business telling people to relax about it.
                          This: "Shouldn’t the same apply to Medmal lawyers who bring these BS suits?"
                          For an attorney to simply invest time at the expense of a defendant is wrong. Criminal suits have checks and balances. Cop -> DA -> Judge -> jury
                          A cop can't just charge everyone at a crime scene. False arrest has penalties.
                          Civil suits using a shotgun approach are just wrong. There needs to be some checks and balances and penalties.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Tim View Post
                            This: "Shouldn’t the same apply to Medmal lawyers who bring these BS suits?"
                            For an attorney to simply invest time at the expense of a defendant is wrong. Criminal suits have checks and balances. Cop -> DA -> Judge -> jury
                            A cop can't just charge everyone at a crime scene. False arrest has penalties.
                            Civil suits using a shotgun approach are just wrong. There needs to be some checks and balances and penalties.
                            The check on the system is that the attorney who brings the suit generally has to front the cost of pursuing it because these are often contingency cases.

                            No lawyer is going to take on a case that they think is a loser, because they lose money. Tons of patients seek out attorneys to go sue doctors and get told by the attorney that they won't take the case because the chance of success is small. We don't hear about those, but if you talk to a malpractice attorney it happens a lot.

                            Obviously some of these cases that are described in this thread should have been identified as losers from the start, but for whatever reason the attorney misevaluated his chances. The penalty is a lot of time and lost money on their end, which is why they are incentivized not to do this (even if they make the wrong call sometimes).

                            None of the above should be construed as a defense of the current malpractice system in the US. It is quite flawed for many reasons.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              “The check on the system is that the attorney who brings the suit generally has to front the cost of pursuing it because these are often contingency cases. ”

                              Sweat equity from the attorneys’ standpoint. Standard fee is 1/3 of the claim. Not confined to malpractice by any means. That is why tort reform put caps. Litigation is a for profit business , pure and simple. Patent trolls, DA’s, divorces, ambulance chasers and insurance companies and political parties use attorneys to weaponize the legal system. It’s no longer about the actual case, it’s about making money or achieving a goal or simply to cause damage.
                              Should your child , an 8th grader , be charged with sexual harassment for using the wrong pronoun?
                              https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/20...istrict/?amp=1
                              Two attorneys will make money.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X