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.
The group, a non-profit 
At the second hospital, doctors found an arteriovenous malformation on her thoracic spine. Professionals found that even after surgery, Hairston’s spine was still 
Under the respondeat superior theory, a theory that applies to many employer/employee relationships, the healthcare provider must be employed by the hospital. In order for a hospital to be liable under respondeat superior, the negligence must occur 
A recent study called Comparative Safety of Topiramate During Pregnancy, performed by researchers from Harvard University, MassGeneral Hospital for Children, and Loyola University in Chicago, has come to the conclusion that 
A 70 year old woman who was a resident of the University Place Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Charlotte, North Carolina was rushed to the Carolinas Medical Center University on the morning of Sunday, August 29, 2011 with a broken pelvis and facial bruise. When the family asked the nursing home what caused the injuries, they told her that the elderly woman had fallen, but emergency room staff at the hospital said that the injuries were not consistent with a fall. This led the family to believe the woman had been assaulted. They alerted the Police and Department of Social Services, an entity that handles allegations of elder abuse, and both began an investigation into what really happened to the woman.
Pierce’s son, David Blackmon, attempted to file a complaint in Sevier County Circuit Court but defense attorneys claimed that the action had to go through arbitration due to forms that Blackmon signed while his mother was at the nursing home. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling in favor of the woman’s son. Judge Rex Ogle, the lower court judge, found that the center failed to provide Blackmon with copies of the forms that he signed, a major mistake according to bed sore attorneys. The Judge noted “it troubles the court that anybody who requires someone to sign legal documents affecting the rights of patients would not give those people copies, executed copies. That makes no sense to me.” Lawyers say that the Judge continued by stating “the execution of the agreement, the way it was handled, it was very shoddy. And I think that quite candidly is unconscionable, that it does shock the conscience of this court by how this entire agreement was handled they should not be enforced.”
On May 17, 2007, Lawrence Dixon fell and fractured his pelvis. David Harding was the doctor assigned to Dixon. It was alleged by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that, after conducting examinations, Dr. Harding failed to notice internal bleeding which ultimately led to the failure of multiple organs and eventually death. It is argued that there were numerous warning signs that an experienced doctor, such as Harding, should have recognized. Medical malpractice attorneys argued that the victim had not produced urine in over twenty four hours, had a rapidly increased heartbeat, a rapidly decreased blood pressure, and suffered loss of lucidity. Professionals believe that any of these signs should have been a strong warning sign to Harding that something was wrong and it was likely that the patient was losing blood.