40% of malpractice suits called meritless

[question everything]

40% of malpractice suits called meritless

Harvard analyzes medical disputes

By Alicia Chang
ASSOCIATED PRESS

May 11, 2006

About 40 percent of the medical malpractice cases filed in the United States are groundless, according to a Harvard analysis of an issue that pits trial lawyers against doctors, with lawmakers in the middle.

Many of the lawsuits analyzed contained no evidence that a medical error was committed or that the patient sustained any injury, the researchers reported. The majority of those cases were dismissed with no payout to the patient. However, groundless lawsuits still accounted for 15 percent of the money paid out in settlements or verdicts.

The study's lead researcher, David Studdert of the Harvard School of Public Health, said the findings challenge the view among supporters of tort reform that the legal system is riddled with frivolous claims that lead to exorbitant payouts.

(snip)

The findings were published in today's New England Journal of Medicine. The study found 3 percent of claims analyzed were filed by patients who had no injury. Of the claims that involved injuries, two-thirds were caused by medical error. The remaining injury claims, or 37 percent, lacked evidence of a medical mistake, and most of those – 72 percent – were thrown out or otherwise resolved without a payout to the patient.

The Harvard researchers reviewed 1,452 randomly selected malpractice claims resolved between 1984 and 2004. The claims resulted in a combined $449 million in verdicts and settlements.


Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060511/news_1n11malprac.html

[babylonsister]

1. OK, that's in 20 years. What are the odds that more occurred in

the latter part of those 20 years, given lawsuits started to be 'used'?

[napi21]

2. I don't know if I believe that or not.

I know there are a lot of people who THINK they have a case, and don't. If some attorney takes the case and flies the suit, then I think it's the attoney's fault.

I try to listen to a legal advise sho on KGO radio each Sat and Sun. Len Tillan is the attorney. There have been many people call him with situations they think they can sure a Dr. for. 99% of them, Len will tell the caller, "is there any permanent damage? NO? Well, I don't think you have a case. It's very hard to prove a malpractice case, and you an need expert medical witnesse to testify against the Dr. In this case, I just don't think you could ever win."

[question everything]

4. Unfortunately, there are too many people and lawyers

who are willing to "chance it" or are simply crooked, like that woman with the finger at Denny's chili.

Clearly the people who call the radio station that you mentioned are serious ones who are not sure whether they have a case, who are not there to go after "deep pockets." But many will not question and many are pushed by their lawyers.

Several years ago there was a program on "60 minutes" that showed how a certain county in Texas, I think, had very generous jurors so many lawyers changed venues to that county. And many physicians were leaving that county because their insurance rates rose steeply.

[Mz Pip]

3. That means 60% aren't

Yeah, there are meritless malpractice suits. But that doesn't mean all of them are, or that malpractice suits should be curtailed.

There are always going to be people who will try to make a quick buck and it looks like most get weeded out in the process. For the most part, the system seems to work. 15% is higher than I'd like it to be but to hear the attacks on "trail lawyers' the the Repugs put out, they would like you to believe that most malpractice suits are frivilous.


Mz Pip
:dem:

[charlie]

5. Whenever I hear medical tort reformers

going at it, I think of Texas. The nation's largest malpractice insurer, GE, lobbied hard for non-economic damage caps, saying the awards were causing spiraling premium costs. In 2003, Texas enacted caps of $250,000 on non-economic damages. Within months, GE began pushing through hefty rate hikes. The reason? Damage caps provided "insignificant" savings, on the order of 1-3%. Those guys lie coming and going, and can turn on a dime.