Does anyone know if there is a "registry" of verdicts of cases against anyone other than doctors??
When a doctor is sued, the hospital/group will likely want to settle because they don't want the doctor's name "on the registry".
What about the nurse, technician, or otherwise that is also found at fault in a malpractice case?

Although these people do not tend to have these sorts of marks on their files for new jobs or insurance (at least not as blatantly as physicians), they are named in lawsuits. But they are named in the fashion of "the employess of the hospital" which has to do with the way in which they are insured. The hospital doesn' t have insurance for each technician or nurse by name, and it is in general the insurance that will pay. I don't really understand the logic of this one myself, but this is the way it apparently works.

Regardless, my position still stands that I am a physician because I want to treat patients. We are all part of the human family. I wish I was involved in this story more directly, but it is one of my favorites to tell about one of my med school professors...a patient from the psych emergency room (13th floor) came down to the ER's red zone, he pulled out a gun, the security there shot him, and the trauma team got him to the table and threw ATLS his way. He may not have been a person of high moral standards, but he was resucitated in the same fashion that any police officer would have been. Those are the kinds of doctors that I have always wanted to emulate...
Ellie

if you hit someone with your car, you have to pay the consequences, even if it was a mistake. if you overdraw your checking account, you have to pay the fine, even if it was a mistake. if a doctor cuts the wrong leg off, he should have to pay for his mistake. yes, people should always have recourse when medical mistakes happen. doctors have to pay for their mistakes, just like everyone else.

that said, there is a difference between mistakes and bad outcomes. if a doctor amputates the wrong leg, that's clearly a mistake. maybe it was the technition's mistake, but still... a mistake. if chemo doesn't cure someone's cancer, that is just a bad outcome. no one should have to pay for that.

recourse doesn't mean they automatically win. it just means a system is in place that allows them to take some action towards correcting the wrong they believe they have suffered. i think malpractice cases should have to pass through some objective medical review board paid for by the courts before they can proceed. that way, cases where there is no evidence of malpractice could be thrown out. i also think caps on non-economic damages are a good idea. these are changes that could help keep malpractice premiums in check, while still protecting patients. disallowing malpractice suits in general is not a reasonable solution, and that seems to be what you are suggesting.

Ya know what really ticks me off..what about when *judges* make mistakes? like letting someone get off easy and then that person goes and kills or rapes someone else...how come they are not being held to the same standards? they are also dealing with life and death situations...food for thought.

I have to be the most misintrepreted person on the internet! :rolleyes:

OF COURSE, I'm not talking about banning malpractice suits altogether. OTOH, I like your idea of have these types of cases go before a "review" before being allowed into trial.

As for mistakes versus bad outcomes, I'm sure there are plenty of doctors that have sued in both situations. Finally about hitting someone with your car and paying the consequences, again that depends on how much money you have. A certain former presidental candidate allowed his mistress to drown in a car he was driving and MAY have received a slap on the wrist for that.

Lastly, I think Efex brings up a good point about Judges. I'd also like to sue the cops that took so long to catch the killer of my best friend for mental anguish. :rolleyes:

That is exactly what we need like a committee review board or even a jury that is composed of randomly selected physicians in every specialty to let them figure out if the suit is really malpractice or an honest to God mistake/mishap. I think that any physician would be willing to do this because it will be in our best interest to "weed out" the bad apples and get rid of this malpractice free for all. I know that some other cases (taxes or financial?) have special juries that "know" the stuff so why let folks that have no clue of what is the standard make decisions that affect the medical professional? sometimes I do wonder about our system sheesh.

i like it, sortof a mandatory mediation process using peers

I obviously can't keep my big mouth shut - sorry gals!

I think there have been many valid points made on both sides of this argument. It also seems that we all agree on the fact that there is a big difference between a frivolous law suit and a law suit brought against a physician, who through negligence, has cause harm to a patient. As far as treating lawyers and their relatives goes - is there some sort of statistic that shows that lawyers or their families are more likely than the general population to bring frivolous law suits against a physician, or is this only a perceived threat? Do lawyers ACTUALLY sue more on their families or their own behalf than other groups? If almost half of all malpractice suits are brought against 4% of doctors as a previous poster stated, then it seems that most malpractice suits probably aren't frivolous. It seems more like a matter of incomptence than anything else. (Why these doctors are able to continue to practice medicine is a mystery to me).

What do you guys think? Do you think that not treating lawyers or their families will actually decrease your chances of being sued, or is more a matter of competence?

BTW - If anyone does have some sort of statistic on number of malpractice suits brought by occupation, I would be interested in seeing it. It seems to me that other doctors would actually be more likely to sue, based on the fact that they know enough to question certain treatments and know other options that may or may not have been more successful.

Efex-There's some validity to this when I'm being asked to routinely precertify 6-7 exams for generalized abd pain from a handful of referrers in our metro area. The abuse I see from this end (radiology) happens only in a few but "paranoid" doctors although I can't really blame them in the litigious climate that exisits (sp? not thinking straight waiting for med director to pick up on my phone line-bad onhold music). They are ALL FP/PCP physicians-I don't see this excess from specialists in any relative degree. That said with medicaid and medicare reimbursement (kind of an oxymoron using medicare and medicaid and reimbursement in the same sentence :twocents:

- perhaps one of the reasons that primary care physicians order an "overkill" workup is that they are deterred from sending the patient to a specialist who can determine a better use of imaging studies - the other reason is that the FP is actually held to being a "specialist" of all specialties so is ordering a "test-load" equal to that of several physicians should the patient have been sent to several consultants. Sorry if that is confusing - You see, a specialist will only concentrate on his/her area of specialty and won't be faulted for missing something out of his/her domain whereas the PCP will be faulted for missing problems in any organ system. So, the PCP has to cover all bases! The PCP doesn't have the responsibility of actual treatment as much as he/she has the responsibility of uncovering all and any potential problems - even those outside the patient's complaint! As a PCP, I have discovered other more important issues incidentally while working up a patient for their primary complaint.

THANKS Cali! That's helpful to be more patient while wading through all these referral requests-that my job is not for "naught". One of my very favorite docs is my FP (I bring him bagels when I have an appointment and send him encouragement notes when I feel a leading spirit). My personal experience has been the opposite but I know in my family what you describe is more common. I now have 14 specialists-I'm thinking this is the size of a baseball team (with a few standbys for the injured) and should enter them in a league :laughing: . I also have to be zealous that all the appropriate test results and chart notes get to Dr. K (FP PCP) so he can better take care me-the information breakdown between doctors is a whole other topic in itself.