Posts Tagged ‘Tort Reform’

Misinformation Key to Tort Reformers

Monday, April 18th, 2011

Our medical malpractice attorneys in Chicago have often written about the falsehoods and misinformation behind the movement for so-called “tort reform.”  One area of misinformation has gotten some play recently:  the idea of “defensive medicine.”

Defensive medicine is a term coined by proponents of “tort reform” to describe the supposed overuse of unnecessary or unjustified tests and procedures, simply to avoid a future malpractice lawsuit.  As our medical malpractice lawyers have previously discussed, the practice of defensive medicine may itself constitute fraud, if the doctor is billing federal or state Medicare or Medicaid programs for these tests and services.  Submitting a bill to these programs for services which were not medically necessary or justified is fraud on the government, and is not only unethical, it is a crime.

More fundamentally, however, there is absolutely no evidence that: (1) doctors are practicing “defensively” to the detriment of their patients’ health; or (2) medical malpractice lawsuits have anything to do with it.

For instance, in a recent New Yorker article, Dr. Atul Gawande quoted his discussions with McAllen physicians of various specialties, and talked to them about why McAllen had the most expensive health care in the nation.  The physicians initially blamed malpractice suits, claiming that the town was “legal hell.”

But when pressed about the fact that Texas’ tort reform laws had so curtailed patient’s rights that malpractice lawsuits in the state had dropped “practically to zero,” the physicians admitted that these arguments were “bullshit.”  Medical care in the town was expensive, they admitted, because doctors increased fees and charges by ordering extra tests, procedures, and other medical services.

In other words: (1) doctors and hospitals made more money by ordering extra tests and providing additional medical services; and (2) those tests and medical procedures, if anything, improved patient care; and (3) the irrational fear of medical malpractice had no impact on this practice.

Indeed, a new study out of the University of Iowa, led by David Katz, M.D., found that physicians’ reported fears of being sued for malpractice are in fact irrational — because doctors are not being sued, and are not held liable, for conduct that falls within the agreed-upon standard of care within the medical community.

Nevertheless, the hype and lobbying over tort reform has become so pervasive that physicians believe they are in constant peril of being sued for “frivolous” lawsuits, even when this is not the case.  There is absolutely no mention of all of the safeguards in place to prevent against inappropriate lawsuits, such as: (1) the requirement in nearly every state, including Illinois, that a doctor must file a sworn affidavit that there is a merit to the malpractice lawsuit before such a suit can be filed; (2) judges can sanction inappropriate lawsuits; (3) lawyers representing plaintiffs typically have contingency arrangements with their clients — meaning if the plaintiff loses, his or her lawyer gets nothing — and is out all of the expenses paid with respect to the lawsuit.

Conversely, what fears are completely rational?  Those of patients.  As our medical malpractice attorneys have previously reported, according to the U.S. Department of Human Services, when a patient enters the hospital she has a one in seven chance of being harmed there, including medical injury that leads to severe, permanent disability or death.

Clearly, the proper solution to a misperceived defensive medicine epidemic is not to take away the legal rights of the one in seven patients whom these doctors injure.  It is time to end, once and for all, the specter of “tort reform” and move forward with real reforms to reduce malpractice suits – instituting and following proper procedures that will prevent medical malpractice in the first place.  In the meantime, our attorneys stand ready to defend the rights of the victims of this plague of bad medicine.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago malpractice injury lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

share save 171 16 Misinformation Key to Tort Reformers

Texas Proves that Tort Reform Harms Patients

Tuesday, January 25th, 2011

The medical malpractice attorneys of Passen Law Group have often voiced our objection to so-called “tort reform”:  legislation intended to reduce medical insurance companies’ liability exposure by reducing the amount of money that the victims of malpractice can recover.  Such “reforms” are simply unjust.  In effect, a legislature passing such “reforms” says to the victims of medical negligence: sorry, you should not be fully compensated for the harm that was done to you because it is more important inflate the pocketbooks of insurance companies.

Our attorneys are firmly opposed to any such reform in Illinois.  Indeed, a look back at what has occurred in Texas after the passage of tort reform clearly illustrates that such measures create unjust results.

Texas passed its tort reform legislation in 2003.  This legislation was in the same mold as other tort reform proposals – it was designed to make it harder for those injured or killed by medical negligence to fully recover for the harm they suffered.  The two principal provisions of Texas’ medical“tort reforms were: (1) caps on non-economic damages and (2) a heightened standard for imposing liability on emergency-room physicians.  It is exactly these types of “reforms” that attorneys such as our medical malpractice lawyers have worked hard to fight in Illinois.

The Texas reforms placed a cap on noneconomic damages:  $250,000 per health care provider (doctor, hospital, etc.) and a maximum award of $750,000 from all defendants relative to a single incident.  Non-economic damages are damages above and beyond the out-of-pocket expenses associated with medical negligence — past/future pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, loss of companionship, loss of society, etc.

The change in the liability standard for emergency-room doctors was more insidious.  Under the new law, emergency-room physicians cannot be held liable for the harm they inflict on helpless patients unless they act with “willful and wanton” disregard.

The combination of these two “tort reform” provisions has greatly harmed patients in the state of Texas – but has been all to the benefit of the state’s medical insurance companies.  Meanwhile, patients who have been injured by medical negligence, and the families of patients who have been killed by such negligence, are unable to recover the full amount of their damages, or even to find an attorney to help them bring suit in the first place.  Our top medical malpractice attorneys believe that if such reforms ever stuck in Illinois, we would see similar results here.

Indeed, a study out of the University of Texas School of Law has found that from 2003 (when the “reforms” began) and 2007, medical malpractice claims filed in the state have dropped by 60 percent.  And of those claims that are filed, payouts per claim have dropped by a third.

But doctors themselves have reaped the rewards of the new laws.  Statewide, malpractice insurance rates have fallen by nearly 30 percent since the Texas “tort reforms” went into effect.  So, there is more money in Texas physicians’ bank accounts – at the expense of those who are grievously injured or killed by their negligence.

As Brant Miller, a Texas cardiologist and attorney, has stated, “what Texans don’t know is that their Legislature has mandated a very low standard of care – almost no care.”  It is exactly this result that worries medical malpractice attorneys such as those at Passen Law Group.  Not only does “tort reform” wreak an injustice on those who are injured, denying them full compensation for their injuries, but it also has a deeper, systemic effect.  Over the course of only a few years, doctors become adjusted to the new standard, and all patients begin receiving less concerned, less effective, and more dangerous treatment.

For example, Connie Spears of San Antonio, Texas, was admitted to a local emergency room on the Friday before Memorial Day weekend with excruciating leg pain – leg pain she had felt before.  You see, Ms. Spears had previously had dangerous blood clots.  In fact, she had had a blood filter installed in one of the principal veins in her heart for just this problem.  The emergency room doctor, however, simply discharged her after a few tests and told her to follow up after the holiday with her primary-care physician.

Before the weekend was over, Ms. Spears was “delirious,” and her legs were so dark that they resembled red wine.  She was rushed to another emergency room, which discovered that her vein filter had become clogged with clots, and she was suffering kidney failure and tissue death in both legs.  Her legs were both amputated in order to save her life.  She now needs assistance with everyday tasks such as showering and using the bathroom.  Her life will never be the same.

Yet Ms. Spears has been completely unable to find a medical malpractice attorney to represent her.  The problem?  The combination of the Texas caps on non-economic damages and the unreasonably high standard for liability for emergency-room physicians.  Every lawyer Ms. Spears has spoken to has told her that she deserves compensation, and that she would have a winning case – in any state but Texas.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago medical malpractice attorney at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

share save 171 16 Texas Proves that Tort Reform Harms Patients

Negligent Doctors Injure the Wrong Victim This Time

Thursday, December 16th, 2010

Even those with far less experience than the top Chicago medical malpractice attorneys of Passen Law Group have heard egregious examples of medical malpractice:  Surgery performed on the wrong body part.  Misdiagnosed cancer.  Delayed labor and delivery causing permanent birth injuries. The list goes on.

It’s easy to call for “tort reform” when you or someone you love has never fallen victim to medical malpractice.  However, as the news story out of Florida below makes clear: (1)  no one is free from the risk of medical malpractice; (2) the consequences of malpractice are often devastating; and (3) all victims of such negligence are entitled to fair and reasonable compensation — without “one size fits all”  arbitrary caps.

The story involved a patient who checked into a hospital for surgery to correct an intestinal condition, diverticulitis.  When the surgery was complete, the surgeons closed the patient up.  There was just one problem – a sponge was left in the patient’s abdomen.  But in this case, the sponge was not what you would normally think of – kitchen-sized, or even a luxurious bath sponge.  The sponge left in the patient’s abdomen was a full sized, foot-long by foot-wide giant sponge.

The other problem for this hospital and doctors — aside from leaving a foot-long sponge in a patient’s abdomen — was their victim.  The patient whose abdomen was left containing this behemoth was a judge.

The patient in this case was Palm Beach, Florida judge Nelson Bailey, a 67-year old man who suffered months of agony after this atrocity.  Indeed, immediately after the surgery to correct his diverticulitis, Judge Bailey’s stomach pain not only did not abate, it began to get worse.  Much worse.   Our experienced medical malpractice lawyers are unsurprised.  In spite of the tendency of laypeople to laugh at “sponge stories,” any foreign object left in the body after surgery, including an innocuous-seeming sponge, is extremely painful and can lead to dramatic damage or even death.

Judge Bailey eventually complained to his doctor, who sent him for a series of CT scans.  Shockingly, not one of the abdominal CT scans performed on Judge Bailey detected the presence of a foreign object larger than many laptop computers.

After some time, of course, the sponge was found.  But because of the length of time the sponge had been in Judge Bailey’s abdomen, it was now “festering.”  Not only was the sponge removed, but physicians were required to remove a portion of Judge Bailey’s intestine, which had been damaged beyond repair by the rotting sponge.

Judge Bailey has now reached a settlement with the hospital and its owner, Tenet Healthcare System.  Next, he intends to sue the doctors who committed this atrocity.  Our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys wish him the best of luck.

Unfortunately, the amount of damages Judge Bailey can recover for what was clearly, beyond any doubt, medical malpractice is limited.  You see, his home state of Florida still maintains caps on the amount of damages a medical malpractice plaintiff can recover – a cap of the sort ruled unconstitutional by our own Illinois Supreme Court. So-called “tort reformers” continue to work hard to undo this protection, even campaigning to unseat the judges who took the courageous stand required to eliminate this unjust law.

We will not speculate as to the nature and extent of the damage suffered by Judge Bailey.  But we can say that this act of unquestionable medical negligence calls for complete compensation, for all the harm he has suffered.

Judge Bailey has now begun to speak out against caps on damages in medical malpractice cases, an issue that was never of importance to him before because, as he candidly admits, “that is not my area of law” — and also because he never before felt the draconian impact of such a law.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago medical malpractice lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

share save 171 16 Negligent Doctors Injure the Wrong Victim This Time