I appreciate your comments and the conundrum you described. But it is false. As a forensic psychologist I spent over 12 years working nationally as a trial consultant and the reality is that it is very hard to sue doctors because there's very little money it in and attorneys won't take cases that don't offer at least a million in likely …
I appreciate your comments and the conundrum you described. But it is false.
As a forensic psychologist I spent over 12 years working nationally as a trial consultant and the reality is that it is very hard to sue doctors because there's very little money it in and attorneys won't take cases that don't offer at least a million in likely (probable) damages and the more millions the better. In most states, medical and malpractice insurance lobbyists were successful in getting laws passed that CAP damages for pain and suffering. It was already difficult to win cases against doctors unless there was a gross injury and the doctor's work fell far far below the standard of care. Lawyers only take the cases where these is permanent damage to a malpractice victim that necessitates a future lifetime of care involving tens of millions of dollars, from which the attorneys will cut their 35 to 40 percent fees.
After all that, juries tend to side with doctors unless they've done something offensive, like carve their initials into someone's ovaries. Its easy for insurance companies to get experts to say that the doctor did nothing wrong. Juries can heartlessly ignore a plaintiff's injuries unless the sun, moon and stars of victimization all line up and they feel more for the victim-plaintiff than they do for the defendant doctor AKA God.
I would like to say that Doctors make lousy witnesses (because it's true and because it's so easy for opposing counsel to trip them up), but that is why they are usually never allowed to testify. I would favor a law that forced Doctors to testify to enable jurors to see what total sanctimonious god-complex bastards they can be.
Yes, you'd have to sue the Corporate front-man before you get to the eedjot flunky doing their dirty work. It's wishful thinking that we'd live to see the day when medical schools didn't need to tell their students that 85% of the patients they see are there because of physician-caused reasons.
" ... it is very hard to sue doctors because there's very little money it in and attorneys won't take cases that don't offer at least a million in likely (probable) damages and the more millions the better."
Another issue is that some states precondition a med-mal action on an affidavit of merit from another doctor in the same area of specialization stating that the doctor has reviewed the case and is of the professional medical opinion that there has been a breach of the applicable standard of care. This has essentially gutted med-mal actions in states like Michigan because doctors are increasingly reluctant to acting as the liability expert against a fellow medical professional.
I appreciate your comments and the conundrum you described. But it is false.
As a forensic psychologist I spent over 12 years working nationally as a trial consultant and the reality is that it is very hard to sue doctors because there's very little money it in and attorneys won't take cases that don't offer at least a million in likely (probable) damages and the more millions the better. In most states, medical and malpractice insurance lobbyists were successful in getting laws passed that CAP damages for pain and suffering. It was already difficult to win cases against doctors unless there was a gross injury and the doctor's work fell far far below the standard of care. Lawyers only take the cases where these is permanent damage to a malpractice victim that necessitates a future lifetime of care involving tens of millions of dollars, from which the attorneys will cut their 35 to 40 percent fees.
After all that, juries tend to side with doctors unless they've done something offensive, like carve their initials into someone's ovaries. Its easy for insurance companies to get experts to say that the doctor did nothing wrong. Juries can heartlessly ignore a plaintiff's injuries unless the sun, moon and stars of victimization all line up and they feel more for the victim-plaintiff than they do for the defendant doctor AKA God.
I would like to say that Doctors make lousy witnesses (because it's true and because it's so easy for opposing counsel to trip them up), but that is why they are usually never allowed to testify. I would favor a law that forced Doctors to testify to enable jurors to see what total sanctimonious god-complex bastards they can be.
Thanks for your explanation!
Yes, you'd have to sue the Corporate front-man before you get to the eedjot flunky doing their dirty work. It's wishful thinking that we'd live to see the day when medical schools didn't need to tell their students that 85% of the patients they see are there because of physician-caused reasons.
" ... it is very hard to sue doctors because there's very little money it in and attorneys won't take cases that don't offer at least a million in likely (probable) damages and the more millions the better."
Another issue is that some states precondition a med-mal action on an affidavit of merit from another doctor in the same area of specialization stating that the doctor has reviewed the case and is of the professional medical opinion that there has been a breach of the applicable standard of care. This has essentially gutted med-mal actions in states like Michigan because doctors are increasingly reluctant to acting as the liability expert against a fellow medical professional.
Very true. I had forgotten about that.
And doctors just love testifying against each other.
Its a Hired Gun situation and that means you usually have to hire from out-of-town if not out-of-state.
More $$$Barriers to MedMal Suits.