Another one bites the dust... - Page 2

Moses · 07-20-2004, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Halm
I just ran the math: A Bay Area OB make only $100K / year? I admit it has been 10 years since I got out of the medical device industry, but that just doesn't sound right. Sure about the income?

That said, I completely agree that she should not have to bear the cost of the "fishing expidition". As others have said, we need tort reform.

Most obstetricians work at least 60 hours/week. In our town, the doctors mostly have private practices and "moonlight" at the hospital for $48/hr.

Dr. Smith worked about 50-60 hours/week and made about $120,000/year. (That's a guess, but likely a pretty good one.)

Moses · 07-20-2004, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by vash
moses, any idea what she is going to do? completely retire?

She's done. She was a talented and caring physician. Earlier in her career she took time off to have a baby. She took 4 months off after the baby was born, but insisted on paying her entire office staff full pay while she was off work. She made about $40,000 that year and never complained.

She didn't have a large volume practice because she spent a lot of time with each patient. She was meticulous and careful. This lady was loved. Now she is retired. She has no plans to return to medicine.

david c. · 07-20-2004, 05:14 PM

In Pennsylvania, doctors pay their insurance not based on their track record but rather based on the track record of losses for all docs. So, unlike car insurance where to some extent the bad drivers are penalized by higher premiums, all doctors good and bad suffer.

The med mal industry is driven by insurance companies not doctors. It is a proven unmitigated fact that tort reform lends itself to more profitable insurance companies and not to lower premiums.

Causation is a necessary element of any claim such as the one described in the first post. The insurance company that carried that doctor must have come to some type of conclusion that she had a measure of exposure on this matter. They hold back money when claims come in based on their own assessment of the liability exposure. If there was no exposure at all, to the extent that no reasonable minds could differ, the case would not have gone to a jury. It would have fallen down (excuse the pun) at some preliminary but dispositive step like judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment, or non-suit depending on the jurisdiction.

It is somewhat difficult to extrapolate from this one example and one doctor's decision to retire all the way through to the problems with the greedy insurance companies and their massive lobbying capabilities. In short, "it ain't all the lawyers" guys.

vash · vash's Garage

if i was her, i would sign myself up for vet school at UC davis. dogs dont sue, or do they?

i hope her the best. at least her kid will turn out great with a full time mom around.

Moses · 07-20-2004, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dave cardone

The med mal industry is driven by insurance companies not doctors. It is a proven unmitigated fact that tort reform lends itself to more profitable insurance companies and not to lower premiums.

New York does not have tort reform. California has the most aggressive tort reform (MICRA) in the nation.

When I left New York for California, my malpractice rates dropped 70% !!!

To suggest that malpractice rates are unaffected by tort reform is counterintuitive and not supported by the data.

david c. · 07-20-2004, 06:25 PM

It's one of those things that is spun by who provides the info. I've read articles about the profitability of insurance companies in states with recent tort reform legislation and it's just plain sad. The people aren't benefitting.

I feel for the doctors. I think docs are by and large great people. I also think that they are among the most highly trained and skilled people on planet Earth and, therefore, when commoners place trust in them, there should be something backing it up.

If I lose a leg in a car accident or as a result of med mal, what's the diffence to the commoner?

I simply don't get why docs aren't charged per their track record.

CamB · CamB's Garage

Hmmm, she could move to rural New Zealand and earn even less money (however, with very low cost of living), with no chance of being sued. We don't really do that to our doctors - in part because I think medical misadventure is covered by a state-funded accident compensation thing (all accidents - sport and work related). The state isn't particularly generous.

Moses · 07-21-2004, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dave cardone

I simply don't get why docs aren't charged per their track record.

Paradoxically, the very best surgeons have the worst outcomes and are sued continually.

The truly great surgeons take cases that most others find "inoperable". I know a heart surgeon who is truly a magician. He gets referrals from all over the state, really sick people whose local surgeon won't touch them. His mortality rates are nearly double the national average and that fact gets him barbequed in court regularly. Yet, he's the guy the doctors send their families to.

It's a crazy system. I guess my only point is that some of these legal "fishing expeditions" can be ruinous for the accused. The the plaintiff should automatically pay financial restitution when you are accused unjustly.

mikester · 07-21-2004, 06:33 AM

I don't know if I would call them all fishing expeditions...

My experience is limited which might make me the average person.

Recently my wife's father was in the hospital - most of the first half of his year until his death a couple of months ago.

He had Parkinson's and it was very advanced. He was also out of state and living in a convalescence home. We would get calls occasionally telling from the home or the hospital telling us he was there but not every time. It was a very rough time for us being so far away from him. We would go there every couple of weekend - well, my wife would and we also had some good friends help out.

The Dr. would tell her that she could call "anytime, just call my message service and they will page me." But every single time we would call that message service absolutely refused to page that particular Dr. Absolutely. They would page the on call Dr, but not the one who told use "Page me anytime." This was very frustrating to us, especially my wife who would get a call from the home saying "we sent him to the hospital again" and then not be able to get a hold of anyone at the hospital. The on call Dr. was of course no help in giving us simple information on her father's condition. Also, it wasn't appropriate for us to page the on call Dr. for information and not an emergency. So, while this paging service isn't a Dr. on call you can bet that if we had a malpractice suit in this case (which we don't at all) they would be named in the suit if possible.

The Dr. said to us with nurses present as witnesses "If you need to talk to me, please call my paging service and they will contact me immediately."

We were never, ever able to get this to happen and the Dr. was not concerned with this problem. Luckily there were other Dr.s attending to her father as well as nurses who took good care of him and great care of my Wife when she needed it.

So, as much as I feel for your Dr. Friend here and I also agree that mal insurance is over priced I must contest that all those considered in malpractice suits may have minimal involvement but when someone's life is in question even the smallest responsibility is responsibility none the less. It's a very frustrating predicament and I am not sure I agree with it but I am having trouble arguing with it. Your Dr Friend probably did right in that on call instance but she was still involved in the care of the patient. I don’t think the lawyer’s are to blame here I think the insurance company is.

Dantilla · 07-21-2004, 07:22 AM

Those who don't think tort reform helps should take a look at general aviation.

Cessna, once the largest aircraft manufacturer in the world, quit building any piston powered airplanes in 1986 because of liability issues.

The day after a statute of limitations was announced for aircraft manufacturers, Cessna said it would once again build piston airplanes. Since that anouncement, they have built new factories, employed hundreds, and you can go to your local airport today and buy a brand new Cessna.

Tort reform works.

dtw · 07-21-2004, 10:02 AM

Very timely that I read this column today:
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39327

304065 · 07-21-2004, 06:59 PM

Quote:

The day after a statute of limitations was announced for aircraft manufacturers, Cessna said it would once again build piston airplanes. Since that anouncement, they have built new factories, employed hundreds, and you can go to your local airport today and buy a brand new Cessna.

Tort reform works.

First, it's not a statute of limitations, it's a statute of REPOSE. Big difference.

Second, do you know what the Statute of Repose provided? It said that after 18 years had passed, you could no longer bring a cause of action for products liability against an aircraft manufacturer based on defects in DESIGN.

Not manufacturing defects, DESIGN defects. The theory was that if they hadn't manifested themselves in the prior 18 years, they couldn't be the cause of an accident.

The reason why Cessna quit making GA aircraft was partially due to products liability suits, but mostly due to the fact that the margins on ONE Citation were higher than a hundred 152's. This company had a strategic choice about where to deploy capital, and correctly saw the dawn of a new era of personal jet aviation.

Piper Aircraft went BK becuase they didn't have alternative revenue streams. They got in a lot of trouble over in-flight breakup of the Malibu and that was it. You buy a new Archer today, it's the same type certificate, but you're buying it from "New Piper Aircraft."

You go to your local Cessna dealer today, you buy a warmed-over spam can with a new paint job and the same Lycoming design that's been flying with the airplane since the 70's.

You buy a Cirrus SR-20 today, which represents a genuine innovation in the marketplace, and what's the impact of Statute of Repose? Nothing. The a/c wasn't around 18 years ago.

Tort reform? How about an end to tort-feasor behavior? How about people giving a **** about their fellow human beings sufficient to avoid negligent behavior, and then having the integrity not to sue if stuff goes wrong?

Not a lawyer problem. A human behavior problem.

Moses · 07-21-2004, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by john_cramer

Not a lawyer problem. A human behavior problem.

John, respectfully speaking I hope...The system is broken. Justice and truth are irrelevant. A small (I hope) fraction of lawyers shamelessly and without censure exploit the public at great cost. Extortion is legal in America if you have a law degree. It needs to stop.

350HP930 · 07-21-2004, 08:11 PM

I am all for tort reform as long as it also conciders the need of the injured as well as the doctors and the insurance industry.

Unfortunately most 'reforms' are driven by just the big money of the doctor and insurance lobbies.

Zeke · 08:40 PM

I believe that building and home improvement contractors have the answer. It's called RME (reponsible managing employee) or RMO (responsible managing officer) here in CA.

I don't do this because I am a one man operation and repudiate the system. But the system supports rearranging the personell at will with any one person carrying the license for a given period.

So, if I have three brothers and we want to work together in the construction business, we form a corporation and one carries the license. If we get in trouble, we change the corp and send another brother up for the license. We abandon the first corp or BK it paying our debt to keep in good standing. When we run out of brothers, we send in an employee for the license. It can go on forever.

The only people who are required to be listed with the State Board are actual shareholders. Employees are free. So, as we use up family qualifiers, we just pay them with salary and bonus. As we use up hired qualifiers, we fire them. Eventually, everyone gets reinstated. Works bset with large minorty families. No reinstatement and they cry discrimination.

We self insure by placing a bond with the state and if a lawsuit occurs that looks like a bad deal, we disolve, reorganize and continue. Maybe out of state for awile. We get our worker's comp from State Fund. With no record of the new company, we start out each time at the base rate. Worker's comp is not affected by civil action regarding performance anyway.

20 years ago there were ads in the paper for contractor licenses for rent. Guys like me would qualify a new company with a notice. I think the only way that law has changed is that I cannot qualify another company if I own more that 20% of a first company. I'm not sure if they plugged the loophole there where I could still qualify 5 companies I own but not own more than 20% of each. I think they did close the hole for employees. An employee RME can only qualify the company he works for and then he must inactivate his primary license. But, they can't stop me from qualifying mutiple companies if I own part of them, AFIK

Perhaps doctors should take a look at the contractor system. Just another clinic name each time out and a new director. Everyone else is a no name employee getting profit sharing.

Moses · 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeke

Perhaps doctors should take a look at the contractor system. Just another clinic name each time out and a new director. Everyone else is a no name employee getting profit sharing.

All malpractice suits and settlements are linked to the doctors medical license and published in a national database. No Three Card Monty for us.

I've never been sued or settled a case, but years ago a large, unclean, unwashed, uninsured and unemployed woman found her way to the emergency room in need of emergency surgery, which I performed (and was never paid for). The operation went well and she was discharged from the hospital 4 days later with no problems other than her continued poor hygiene.

She failed to show up for a post-operative visit. Months later I get a registered letter from her attorney advising me that 10 days after the operation she was admitted to a different hospital with a severe infection. In a follow up call, her lawyer told me, "My client seems determined to go to court, but I think I could convince her to settle for around $30,000. I reminded him that her surgery was uncomplicated, I had done nothing wrong and I wouldn't pay a dime. The attorney said, "Doc, blame is for a jury to decide. I'm just telling you that I will cost you a whole lot more than $30,000 in time and fees if you won't settle."

If we had been in the same room I'd have been arrested for assault. I told him I'd see him in court and I hung up. The bastard knew I had done nothing wrong, but the current system allows him to attempt extortion without penalty. I never heard from him again.