I usually do not read, nor pay attention to the multitude of blogs that
enter my email each day. However, I must admit that your current
thoughts on medical malpractice reform caught my eye. First, I do not,
nor have I ever represented a Plaintiff in a medical malpractice action.
However, I am familiar with the laws in the State of New York and
believe your assessment, at least with respect to New York State and the
vast majority of other states in the country, is flawed.

First, the implementation of the plan quoted in the AP story is largely
law in New York State, with the exception of “specialized judges.” In
New York, the law is so procedurally tilted in the doctor’s favor, that
obtaining a medmal verdict is as difficult as it gets. The statute of
limitations is shortened and the Plaintiff has an absolute obligation to
call a medical professional with similar expertise as the Defendant and
offer proof that the Defendant deviated from what a reasonable doctor in
similar circumstances would have done. This standard is more
pro-Defendant than even the liability protection standard of “best
practices” quoted in the article.

Second, limiting or capping liability hurts individuals who are most
grievously injured in medmal cases and does nothing to eliminate
frivolity. If you are injured slightly as a result of malpractice or if
your claim was frivolous, you would not get above the cap in any event.
Statistically, the real value of medical malpractice payouts from
settlements and verdicts has not changed since the 70s. In states were
caps have been implemented, medical malpractice premiums have continued
to increase.

Finally, specialized judges are not the answer. Judges and juries hear
extremely complex matters including complex securities litigation and
technical patent and trademark issues. They typically, although there
are always exceptions, reach the correct conclusion.

I do not condone frivolity in the system, and I would welcome reforms
that are designed to prevent frivolity, however, I don’t believe for a
second that this issue is being driven by a desire for more affordable
healthcare. Instead, doctors have been brainwashed into believing that
the boogeyman is the trial attorney when in actuality it is the
insurance producer. If the doctor does his job in accordance with best
practices, he should never be concerned of a lawsuit. If doctors
policed themselves the issue would be reduced because the bad apples
would be eliminated.

Sorry for the rant. It is probably a good thing I don’t respond to more
of these things.

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.

I usually do not read, nor pay attention to the multitude of blogs that
enter my email each day. However, I must admit that your current
thoughts on medical malpractice reform caught my eye. First, I do not,
nor have I ever represented a Plaintiff in a medical malpractice action.
However, I am familiar with the laws in the State of New York and
believe your assessment, at least with respect to New York State and the
vast majority of other states in the country, is flawed.

First, the implementation of the plan quoted in the AP story is largely
law in New York State, with the exception of “specialized judges.” In
New York, the law is so procedurally tilted in the doctor’s favor, that
obtaining a medmal verdict is as difficult as it gets. The statute of
limitations is shortened and the Plaintiff has an absolute obligation to
call a medical professional with similar expertise as the Defendant and
offer proof that the Defendant deviated from what a reasonable doctor in
similar circumstances would have done. This standard is more
pro-Defendant than even the liability protection standard of “best
practices” quoted in the article.

Second, limiting or capping liability hurts individuals who are most
grievously injured in medmal cases and does nothing to eliminate
frivolity. If you are injured slightly as a result of malpractice or if
your claim was frivolous, you would not get above the cap in any event.
Statistically, the real value of medical malpractice payouts from
settlements and verdicts has not changed since the 70s. In states were
caps have been implemented, medical malpractice premiums have continued
to increase.

Finally, specialized judges are not the answer. Judges and juries hear
extremely complex matters including complex securities litigation and
technical patent and trademark issues. They typically, although there
are always exceptions, reach the correct conclusion.

I do not condone frivolity in the system, and I would welcome reforms
that are designed to prevent frivolity, however, I don’t believe for a
second that this issue is being driven by a desire for more affordable
healthcare. Instead, doctors have been brainwashed into believing that
the boogeyman is the trial attorney when in actuality it is the
insurance producer. If the doctor does his job in accordance with best
practices, he should never be concerned of a lawsuit. If doctors
policed themselves the issue would be reduced because the bad apples
would be eliminated.

Sorry for the rant. It is probably a good thing I don’t respond to more
of these things.

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.