Posts Tagged ‘Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer’

Myths of Medical Malpractice: ‘Frivolous’ Lawsuits (Part One)

Monday, November 16th, 2009

myth frivolous malpractice suits 300x215 Myths of Medical Malpractice: Frivolous Lawsuits (Part One)During this time of intense health care reform in Congress — with the House having passed a health care reform bill without major draconian medical liability reform, and the Senate soon to begin its debate over a bill — it’s time for experienced personal injury lawyers to separate truth from fiction when it comes to the relationship between medical malpractice laws, insurance and the practice of medicine.  This month, the American Association for Justice (AAJ) released a recent report titled “Five Myths of Medical Negligence.” The bottom line of this report is that none of the proposals for medical malpractice reform will lower the cost of health care, prevent “frivolous” lawsuits, or improve the practice of medicine, including patient safety.

Instead, such “tort reform” simply distract attention away from the true source of rising health care costs — the insurance industry.  More fundamentally, though, the question really is why “patient safety” is taking a back seat to “cost savings.”  This is especially true considering that patient safety is key to lowering health costs.

This week, our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys will present these five myths, one at a time, so that the public understands the issues and the facts.

A focus solely on money, though, ignores the issue of patient safety. And as the AAJ report demonstrates, patient safety takes a back seat to “cost savings” when patient safety is key to achieving cost savings.

Before delving into the details and separating fact from fiction, it is important to define what is meant by “medical malpractice” or “medical negligence.”  Medical malpractice (or negligence) is when a licensed medical professional, such as a physician or nurse, deviates from the “appropriate standard of care,” resulting in injury or death to the patient.  Malpractice covers a wide-range of issues, from failure to obtain consent before a procedure to hypoxia-induced Cerebral Palsy to death, and many areas in between.  Therefore, it is important to have an experienced personal injury and medical malpractice attorney review your case if you suspect malpractice occurred.

Now it is time to address the five myths of medical malpractice, which will be presented over the course of the week.

Medical Negligence Myth #1: There are Too Many “Frivolous Malpractice” Lawsuits

This is a common complaint levied by right-wing politicians (backed by the insurance lobbyists) and some from the medical industry, including the American Medical Association lobby.  It is important to define what they mean by “frivolous.”

In a legal context, a “frivolous” lawsuit is one that is filed without legal merit. Legal merit is determined by what is called “due diligence,” or a person and his or her lawyer’s duty to investigate the the facts and law before filing a lawsuit.  Lawyers are ethically and legally bound (by both state and federal law) to only pursue lawsuits filed in “good faith.”  If a lawyer files a “frivolous” lawsuit, that lawyer can be sanctioned by a judge under both state and federal law.

If the threat of sanction was not enough of a deterrent, several states, including Illinois have added extra protections to prevent frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits.  In Illinois, a plaintiff who files a medical negligence lawsuit must attach a sworn affidavit from a medical expert in the appropriate field of specialty (typically, practicing doctor) stating that the doctor believes a meritorious action exists against the defendant doctors/hospitals for medical malpractice.  Therefore, in most lawsuits criticized as “frivolous,” a medical professional has stated his or her belief that the lawsuit has merit.

This myth has been debunked by empirical evidence.  According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), an independent nonprofit organization that “serves as an adviser to the nation to improve health,” 98,000 people a year die from preventable medical errors.  If a substantial number of people really were filing frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits, then the majority, if not all, 98,000 people killed each year due to preventable medical errors would file a claim.  However, the AAJ report cites a Harvard study showing that only one in eight people injured as a result of medical negligence actually files a malpractice lawsuit.

The bottom line is that it is not in either the injured plaintiff’s interest or the personal injury lawyer’s interest (who typically receives compensation only if the lawsuit is successful) to file a “frivolous” medical negligence lawsuit.  There are stringent state and federal laws that prevent such lawsuits from being filed, including the requirement of a medical professional’s certificate of merit.  Further, the empirical evidence shows that the number of malpractice lawsuits being filed, as compared to the number of actual cases of medical negligence, is strikingly small.

At Passen Law Group, our Chicago personal injury attorneys are committed to preserving access to the civil justice system for families and individual victims of medical negligence.  For a free consultation with one of our lawyers, call us at (312) 527-4500.

share save 171 16 Myths of Medical Malpractice: Frivolous Lawsuits (Part One)

Passen Comments on Medical Peer Review Abuse in Malpractice Context

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

medical malpractice expert witness 300x210 Passen Comments on Medical Peer Review Abuse in Malpractice ContextMedical malpractice reform, part of a larger “tort reform” effort, remains a hotly debated issue as health care continues to take front and center.  Various reforms have been offered and continue to be debated.  One such tort reform measure, which has gone under the radar while receiving steady traction, has been the creation of medical societies with increased “peer review” authority to sanction what it deems to be “improper” or “unethical” medical testimony.

Medical society peer review boards are already in use in the realm of medical expert testimony.  Such peer review boards, however, are not full proof, as Chicago injury lawyer Matthew Passen explains in his article, “Courts Address Medical Societies’ Peer Review Authority:  Professional Self-Regulation or Witness Intimidation?”, which was published in the Chicago Bar Association’s “CBA Record” publication.

As Mr. Passen points out, medical peer review boards serve a purpose.  In the context of medical malpractice suits, medical peer review boards “regulate and sanction improper medical expert testimony.”  Many medical societies, such as the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS), the American College of Surgeons, the North American Spine Society, have established medical peer review boards.  Weeding out improper medical expert testimony is done through a formal complaint process whereby a member files a complaint against a physician believed to have violated expert testimony guidelines.   If the complaint is determined to have merit, the offending physician may be suspended or expelled from the medical society, and may also be reported to the National Practitioner Database.

However, Mr. Passen raises an important issue concerning the potential for medical societies’ peer review abuse: Whether or not medical experts have legal recourse “when medical societies misuse their peer review authority to intimidate expert witnesses from testifying against their peers.” Two cases, Fullerton v. Fla. Med. Ass’n and Bundren v. Parriott, suggest that “medical societies do not possess blanket immunity to engage in expert witness intimidation.”  In each case, a complaint criticizing the expert testimony was filed against the testifying physician, who in return filed a complaint against a medical society.  In each case, the court ruled that under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, neither medical society was immune from damages.

As more medical societies continue to expand their peer review authority to sanction what it believe to be “improper” medical testimony, those doctors who are victims of witness intimidation must have legal recourse against the medical society, as well as the complaining doctors. Without such recourse, doctors will be even less inclined to testify on behalf of plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases.   Peer review boards may serve a valid check on improper medical expert testimony, but such power, if left unchecked, may cause more harm than good for doctors and patients alike.  To speak with Mr. Passen, or another Chicago personal injury attorney at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500 for a free consultation.

share save 171 16 Passen Comments on Medical Peer Review Abuse in Malpractice Context

President Obama Rejects Caps On Damages In Medical Malpractice Cases

Monday, June 22nd, 2009

Obama AMA tort reform speech President Obama Rejects Caps On Damages In Medical Malpractice CasesPresident Obama’s speech at the annual conference of the American Medical Association in Chicago was a highly anticipated event, not only for casual followers of the President’s political agenda, but also for Chicago medical malpractice lawyers. Health care reform is front and center, once again, and so is the issue of “tort reform.”

Medical malpractice is considered a “tort” in which the injury is caused by negligence, or a failure to provide the appropriate standard of medical care to the victim. The person who caused the injury may be a doctor, surgeon, nurse, hospital or other licensed healthcare professional.

One of the most controversial tort reform issues involves imposing caps on non-economic (or non-liquidated) damages, such as pain and suffering, in medical malpractice awards. Proponents for caps on non-economic damages argue that jury awards and settlements are too high, causing medical malpractice insurance premiums to rise, thereby increasing the cost of healthcare and forcing doctors to flee to more protective jurisdictions.

However, the evidence does not support these tort reformists. Several independent studies have concluded that medical insurance premiums have not significantly declined in states that have imposed caps on non-economic damages, and are not predicted to significantly decline if Illinois enacts similar caps.

More importantly, an arbitrary cap on damages in a medical malpractice benefits the insurance companies at the expense of those most seriously injured and most in need of help. For example, in Missouri, non-economic medical malpractice awards are capped at $350,000. Therefore, if a newborn child suffers a catastrophic permanent injury such as hypoxia induced cerebral palsy as a consequence of medical malpractice, she may only recover $350,000, despite requiring full-time care for the rest of her live, and never being able to live a normal life.

Further, there is no evidence to support the argument that caps on non-economic damages will impact the filing of “junk” lawsuits. Medical malpractice lawsuits in Illinois and nationwide are extremely expensive to prosecute — filing fees, expert witness fees (often $500-$1,000/hour), exhibits, testimony, etc. The more complicated the medical malpractice case, the more expert witnesses may be required.

In an environment without caps on non-economic damages, Chicago personal injury lawyers must be extremely selective in the medical malpractice cases they handle — because the attorney usually pays all the expenses and attorney’s fees if the plaintiff loses her case. In jurisdictions with caps on non-economic damages, personal injury lawyers will be even less inclined to invest in meritorious medical malpractice cases because of the significant expenses and a capped potential recovery.

If Chicago medical malpractice lawyers are less inclined to file worthwhile claims, then people who have suffered will continue to suffer. The only people who win with caps on medical malpractice awards are the insurance companies.

Thankfully, President Obama told the American Medical Association (and the American public) that medical malpractice caps are “unfair to people who’ve been wrongfully harmed.” He stated that other health care reform options should be pursued.

President Obama outlined other options in an article he wrote in May 2005 with Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The article, “Making Patient Safety the Centerpiece of Medical Liability Reform,” argues for improved patient safety through open communication and confidential disclosure of medical errors over caps on medical malpractice awards.

A year earlier, in May of 2004, Libby Perl, the Century Foundation Program Officer, wrote an article entitled “The Medical Malpractice Controversy” that drew a similar conclusion. She goes on to explain “how limits on awards for “pain and suffering” have the greatest adverse affect on the poor, underemployed, and children, because they would get smaller awards for economic damages such as lost wages.” The people stand to lose if caps are imposed on medical malpractice awards.

The health care reform debate is complex in general, and the debate on caps for medical malpractice awards only adds to the complexity and potential confusion.

What is clear is that caps on medical malpractice awards are not the answer. Millions will be denied their legal rights to seek appropriate compensation and damages when negligence of doctors, hospital staff and other healthcare professionals caused unnecessary pain and suffering. Passen Law Group’s Chicago personal injury lawyers will continue to support the rights of the people to access our courtrooms and to seek the justice they deserve.

share save 171 16 President Obama Rejects Caps On Damages In Medical Malpractice Cases