Health Affairs, the leading journal of health policy and research, founded in 1981 to support health policy education in the medical community domestically and worldwide, recently published the results of a study involving the cost of medical malpractice to the public. This well respected organization demonstrated that the “tort reformists” claim that medical malpractice litigation adds enormous costs to healthcare is simply a myth. In fact, Health Affairs estimated that less than 2.5% of all healthcare costs in the United States are in any way associated to medical malpractice litigations. That’s two and half pennies out of each dollar.
Frivolous Medical Malpractice Defense Costs to the United States
Health and Human Services data shows that in 2008, the United States spent $7,681 per person on healthcare related costs. Less than $200 of this sum is in any way related to medical malpractice law suits. Although the “tort reformist” likes to blame this cost on frivolous lawsuits, what we never hear about are “frivolous defenses.” Someone’s mother, father, son, or daughter is injured because a medical provider took short cuts or didn’t follow basic safety rules of medicine. Instead of accepting responsibility and making up for the medical mistake, many times a medical malpractice insurance company will decide to mount a frivolous defense. It pays thousands and thousands of dollars to high-priced lawyers and medical “experts” to fight the case. Deny and Defend – even when decency and economics demand fair compensation. The family comes into court with a fair and legitimate case and a jury turns them away with nothing. This happens every day – and it adds to this cost of health care
Medical Malpractice Victims vs. Tort Reformists
Tort reformists (and the insurance lobbyists who promote them) like to spin tales about the astronomical costs of medical malpractice litigation to the taxpayers and medical providers of America, but the Health Affairs study negates those accusations. It seems that the only people paying heavily for medical malpractice are those who commit it: negligent doctors and irresponsible pharmaceutical companies. Tort Reformists, medical malpractice insurance lobbyists, and corporate nursing homes all desperately want to prevent ordinary citizens from fair compensation for injuries that could potentially afflict them for the rest of their lives. These tort reformists and HMO lobbyist supporters want the government to place caps on how much a jury is allowed to compensate injured patients. Imagine that. An elected official making a law that says a jury is not permitted to pay victims of malpractice fair compenation – no matter what.
Is $100,000 for causing a young mother of 4 children to lose a breast to misdiagnosed cancer a fair cap? How about $250,000 for causing a father of 3 to spend a lifetime in a wheel chair; or $300,000 for a child who will live the rest of his or her life with a debilitating brain injury? These governement proposed caps on mothers, fathers and children’s compensation would also eliminate the possibility of punitive damages in the case of willful and intentional conduct. Research has shown that monetary punishments are one of the few effective ways to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable for purposelfully harming consumers in the name of profit. As for the medical field, most doctors are hard working, decent, and caring professionals. These doctors don’t need tort reform.
Medical Malpractice Lawyers in New Jersey and Philadelphia
If you or a loved one have been vicitmized by medical malpractice or negligence, contact Messa & Associates for a free case evaluation. NJ and PA medical malpractice attorneys at Messa & Associates, P.C. are experienced in earning fair and helpful compensation for those injured by medical negligence. You may also call for a free consultation at (856) 833-0600 in New Jersey, or (215) 567-2380 in Philadelphia.
To discuss your case immediately, click on the “CHAT LIVE” icon in the bottom right hand corner of your screen. Representatives are standing by to speak with you.
Any medical professional who has spent a significant amount of time in the field knows that medical malpractice does sometimes happen. Although not all medical negligence is serious and life-altering, some rare instances of malpractice are extremely severe and tragic. Lawyers urge that it is these victims who should be allowed to exhaust the judicial system in search of justice. Opponents will certainly argue that doctors will undoubtedly go out of business or flock to states with a more favorable system of tort damages. The victims in cases of medical malpractice are the patients, not the doctors. It is important that although this has become a popular issue recently, that we do not forget the tradition of this country. Many medical malpractice attorneys believe that a jury of the victim’s peers should be able to hear the case and determine a reasonable damage award after being presented with all of the evidence. Aren’t jurors, who hear each case individually, in a better place to determine a fair outcome, as opposed to representatives sitting in a state capital, who throw a limit on damages no matter how serious or traumatic? It seems that a jury is in a better position to determine the severity of a particular case. We should trust juries to come to a fair and equitable outcome, our forefathers certainly did.
Those anecdotes you hear are often about some “frivolous” injury and a multi-million dollar award. Usually, these anecdotes are urban legends and are far from the truth. Juries are assigned with the task of fixing damages based on a number of factors, including the projected cost of continued medical care. When caps are utilized, medical malpractice lawyers can still win a judgment, but it is more likely that the judgment is not going to be enough to cover the victim’s medical costs. When the victim cannot pay their medical bills, the government will have to step in and help, help that is subsidized by taxpayers. Why should victims of medical malpractice and citizens have to bear the burden of “fixing the system” in favor of insurance companies and doctors?
Wilson strongly argued that these medical malpractice caps are blatantly favoring a special class of society over the general public. This special class includes medical professionals, corporations, insurance companies, and special interests groups. Malpractice victims may suffer many non-economic damages that will no longer be fully compensated for in states such as West Virginia. Someone who is permanently disfigured, maimed, or handicapped will certainty be owed compensation that exceeds mere medical expenses and future costs. An avid golfer or swimmer who can no longer enjoy these activities, a young child who will never walk or talk, or a woman who can never bear a child are only some of the instances where non-economic damages that exceed a cap may be necessary. Medical malpractice attorneys also have fears that were pointed out by Judge Wilson. He stated, 
At the summit, doctors maintained that tort reform is necessary because the threat of medical malpractice lawsuits forces them to practice “defensive medicine,” a system of ordering too many unnecessary tests in order to avoid being sued. Attorneys and patient advocacy groups maintained that the real reform needed is of the healthcare system, patient safety, and patient support. Patient advocates also push for reform of insurance companies and the amount of money they are allowed to charge. 
A key issue in the tort reform debate involves “defensive medicine.” Supporters of 
As medical malpractice lawyers, we find that those who accuse medical malpractice claims of being frivolous do not understand the extent of the damage done to people’s lives when negligent doctors make irreversible mistakes. Tort reform would only serve to harm those who are already victims of their health system, and reduce liability for those companies that, by merit of their missions, should be working for their consumers, not against them.