Chattanooga Personal Injury Lawyer - Medical Malpractice

Gastric Bypass Lawsuit

John Rice — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:20:24 GMT

Houston Community Hospital of Texas and one of its surgeons face a medical malpractice lawsuit for the death of a gastric bypass patient. The patient's mother claims the hospital failed to appropriately warn her daughter of the risks involved in the gastric bypass surgery. The same surgeon has been named in another lawsuit.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Rice

Medical Data Missing

John Rice — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:04:56 GMT

Wellpoint has begun informing 75,000 Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield members that a CD holding their personal data is missing. The CD was lost after being sent to a behavioral services company in Connecticut. An Empire spokeswoman said the data was not encrypted.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Rice

Trial lawyers, Physicians and Hospitals

John Rice — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:57:59 GMT

The annual battle between trial lawyers on one side and physicians, hospitals and insurance companies on the other is now under way. Lawyers say it's about medical malpractice. Health-care professionals say it's tort reform. (A tort is a wrong inflicted on someone).

Doctors claim greedy trial lawyers and their clients are flooding the courts with frivolous litigation, sending insurance premiums skyrocketing and forcing physicians out of practice or out of state. They use terms such as "crisis," "jackpot" and "lottery" for malpractice awards.

Lawyers respond that lawsuits are the only way for grievously injured ordinary citizens to be compensated for careless or incompetent medical care that can ruin a life.

Both sides pour tens of thousands of dollars into legislative campaigns, and, yes, it is partisan. While there are some exceptions, Republicans -- who now control the Senate -- are on the doctors' side; Democrats -- who still control the House -- side with the lawyers.

It's easy to shrug off the complexities of a doctor-lawyer, Democrat-Republican shouting match. But something fundamental is at stake: citizen access to the courts, one of the oldest of democratic principles.

For years, the centerpiece of tort reform -- both in Tennessee and nationally -- has been a cap on punitive damages. Those are the legal awards on top of actual damages, such as medicine and hospital bills, doled out as punishment for reckless behavior. In Tennessee, the suggested cap has been $250,000.

The problem is that no one is sure that caps will solve the problem and reduce insurance premiums and lawsuits.

During 2004, there were 2,360 medical malpractice lawsuits in Tennessee. There were only six that resulted in final court verdicts, for $6.7 million in damages, and 444 claims were settled out of court.

In 2005, there were only five final judgments totaling $6 million. Of 2,366 lawsuits filed, 83 percent resulted in no payment of damages.

Tennessee doesn't really regulate insurance companies. The emerging figures suggest maybe it should.

The largest medical malpractice insurance company in Tennessee is owned by doctors and covers about 11,000 of the 14,000 practicing physicians in the state. It has been so successful it has branched out to six other states.

During 2004, insurance companies collected $327 million in premiums and paid out $116 million in claims and expenses in the state. Company reserves stood at $730 million.

In 2005, companies collected $341 million in premiums and paid out $186 million. Reserves increased to $822 million.

Clearly, there is a lot of money in the system, but it isn't being doled out from the jury box. Doctors may well be paying high premiums, but they need to look at their insurance company for explanations.

Sponsors of the tort reform legislation seem to be on the verge of dumping the idea of a cap on malpractice awards. Instead, they are working toward a compromise that would penalize lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits. Someone also needs to look at frivolous insurance premiums as part of any agreement.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Rice

Judiciary Committee Postpones Medical Malpractice Debate

John Rice — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:54:05 GMT

On a day that began with reports of a compromise on medical malpractice legislation, the Senate sponsor of SB2001, Mark Norris, R-Collierville, was granted leave to defer consideration of the bill for another week.

Early this morning, the Nashville Post.com reported that compromise legislation was in the works. Sources involved in the negotiations confirmed that an agreement had been reached on pre-certification of case merit, exoneration or expungement of records when cases are non-suited, changes to pre-litigation interviews to address the holding of the Givens case, liberalization of the locality rule, and continuation of reporting by malpractice carriers. Reports also indicated that caps on non-economic damages, limits on attorney's fees and mandatory periodic payments were off the table.

The TBA opposes arbitrary caps on damages and limits on attorney's fees, and supports efforts to address issues raised by the holding in Givens

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Rice

Medical Malpractice Deal Within Reach on Capitol Hill

John Rice — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:47:03 GMT

Significant changes in Tennessee laws regarding medical malpractice lawsuits may be imminent. An agreement has been reached in principle by leaders of the state's legal and medical communities that proponents believe would lower the number of medical malpractice lawsuits filed in Tennessee and still protect the interests and rights of all parties.

What is not in the agreement is a cap on the amount of any given medical malpractice claim. Should caps -- either an outright ban on them or their imposition -- be included in legislation passed by either the Tennessee House or Senate, it is likely that this agreement would be null and void.

The agreed-upon changes to Tennessee law, which are listed below, would require at least three different bills to pass through both chambers of the legislature. A variety of interest-groups would each have to each have to give ground on long-held stands for all of these measures to pass. The odds against legislative success are substantial -- but in this field, they have never been more surmountable.

This certificate would be different from the pre-certification of medical liability lawsuits that is required in some states. To get pre-certification, the plaintiff only needs a medical professional to sign a paper saying that a case has merit. That person rarely has any involvement with the actual lawsuit.

According to representatives from both sides of the proposed changes in Tennessee, states with pre-cert provisions have failed to realize any decrease in the number of medical liability lawsuits filed.

With a "certificate of good faith," attorneys would have to show that they have discussed the medical liability case with a medical professional and have concluded to their own satisfaction that it has merit. If counsel are found by the court not to have complied with the law and checked on the merits of the claim, they could be subject to so-called "Rule 11" penalties for bringing frivolous litigation.

Violation of the law three times or more would subject lawyers to sanctions by the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility, an obligation to pay the legal fees of the defendant, and having to post a $10,000 bond per defendant in future legal procedures involving medical liability.

Protect or "exonerate" physicians
Currently, Tennessee doctors seeking to affiliate with a hospital or medical organization are asked if they have ever been sued. This question can have significant bearing on whether that doctor will be able to work out a desired affiliation.

A problem, according to the medical community, is that doctors have been named in lawsuits for simply having written an article in a medical journal about a procedure. The doctor has not been central to the case filed and usually sees his or her name thrown out of the case within a short time. Regardless, docs still have to answer that they have been sued.

Under the proposed new rules, doctors and hospitals would not consider these or similar situations as "having been sued."

Investigative interviews
In most cases where medical malpractice occurs, a follow up medical procedure is required. Tennessee law does not compel that second physician to speak with either plaintiff or defendent investigating a medical malpractice claim. Under the new rules a physician could be compelled to discuss his or her medical findings with both sides.

The intent of this provision has been to provide juries with a medical peer familar with the conditions of practicing under a similar circumstance as the defendent.

What this standard has devolved into, in practice, is that testimony and verdicts have been thrown out in cases because a doctor from out of town didn't know exactly how many beds were in a given community's hospital or what type of CAT-scan machine was used at another hospital.

If the changes that are to be proposed are enacted, both doctors and lawyers can dispense with that line of questioning and concentrate on the claim of malpractice.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Rice

Malpractice Laws Face Changes and Debate

John Rice — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:11:09 GMT

As state lawmakers decide whether to pass medical malpractice caps as a means of tort "reform," the Knox News Business Journal offers a debate between a doctor and an attorney who argue both sides of the issue. Lawyer Sid Gilreath argues for defensive medicine, and I must say that I agree:

I want my doctor to use defensive medicine. I want them to use anything available to make sure they are on the right track. When you are talking about a member of your family, your child, you don't want a doctor taking shortcuts on some diagnostic test. It's just like a recent case where a patient went into the hospital because he had a fall and hurt his neck and they didn't X-ray. The next morning he woke up paralyzed from the neck down. They saved the cost of that X-ray, but the result is catastrophic because that person is paralyzed for the rest of his life.

As we all know, the insurance industry has convinced Doctors that lawsuits are pushing their malpractice insurance premiums to new heights. To their credit, it has been quite a successful campaign. Unfortunately, their assertions just aren't accurate.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Rice

Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Dismissed in WI

John Rice — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:14:09 GMT

A Wisconsin judge ruled last week that the statute of limitations had run out on a family who filed a medical malpractice lawsuit. Doctors left a sponge inside Robert Genrich during a July 2003 surgery. The sponge was removed in a second surgery, but Genrich died three days later.

At issue was whether the date of "injury" was defined as the day the sponge was removed in a second surgery or when the man died three days later.
Columbia County Circuit Court Judge Daniel George ruled Thursday that the three-year period began on Aug. 8, 2003, the day Robert Genrich underwent a second surgery to have the sponge taken out.

Genrich's widow filed a medical malpractice suit against the Hospital and its insurance company on August 9, 2006 - one day too late, according to the judge's ruling.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Rice

COPIC to Return $10M to Physicians

Christina Cole — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 03:26:07 GMT

On Wednesday, the state's largest medical malpractice insurer said it will return $10 million to the Colorado doctors that it covers.

COPIC Insurance Co. covers over than 80% of privately insured Colorado Doctors. The distribution follows a September announcement that there will not be an overall rate increase for doctors during 2007.

"One of the promises we make to our insured physicians is that we will return distributions to them whenever our finances permit. This has the effect of moderating the total amount paid for medical malpractice insurance," COPIC Chairman and CEO Ted Clarke said in a press release.

Previously, in December 2005, COPIC had paid distributions that totaled $101.6 million to Colorado Doctors including $2.7 million. The latest $10M distribution is the largest in COPIC's 25- years.

Clarke said COPIC is able to return the money partly because of medical malpractice reform passed by the Colorado Legislature. The Doctors Co., another medical malpractice insurer, said last month it will reduce premiums next year for policyholders in Colorado by an average of 6.7 percent. It also credited Colorado's "positive tort reform environment."
Colorado is one of eight states the American Medical Association labels "stable" amid what it calls a "medical liability crisis."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Christina Cole