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 team of med students and medical professionals aimed to discover how honest doctors believe they should be, and in turn actually are, with their patients. The survey was carried out in 2009 and involved almost 1,900 practicing doctors from the United States.
Point-Of-Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology released a special issue last month highlighting the need for increased vigilance to medical errors related to POCT. The issue contains editorials, research studies, and case reports that provide an overview of the policies in place for other medical providers which assist in assuring patient safety.
Unknown to Garcia, a resident physician performed the procedure and dilated Garcia’s cervix and the uterus was then perforated. Dr. Gove did not properly supervise the resident. When ring forceps were inserted through the perforated uterus in order to remove the fetal remains, he grabbed a piece of bowel that snapped back. As a result of the mistake Garcia’s rectum and bowel were torn. Garcia then required an 
While at the hospital awaiting his transplant, an unrelated instance of medical negligence led to serious medical issues for Dr. Parsons. Parsons was accidentally given a dose of insulin from a nurse who failed to read a note that specifically stated that no insulin be administered. Medical malpractice attorneys believe that the insulin led Parsons into a diabetic coma and eventually caused his death only three weeks later. That’s when medical malpractice attorneys took on the case of Parson’s widow and family to seek justice for the alleged malpractice. The case never reached trial, which allowed the parties to avoid a lengthy litigation process. The two parties agreed to settle for a sum of approximately $5 million earlier this month. It appears that nurses had previously complained to higher-ups that the healthcare providers, on the floor Parsons was located, were overworked and given far too many patients.
First, Damian Saul, 43, suffered a massive stroke while he waited for hours to see a physician at a city hospital. Upon his arrival, Saul informed a nurse that he was having trouble with his sight in one eye. This should have been recognized by the nurse as an initial sign of a stroke. The ensuing stroke left him almost completely paralyzed and he was unable to speak clearly. His medical malpractice attorneys reached a settlement of $5.5 million. His medical malpractice attorneyswere quoted as saying,
Jeffers’ family agreed to a settlement with Methodist Hospital and emergency room workers in the amount of $10 million. Medical malpractice attorneys believe that $9 million will come from the hospital while the remainder will be paid by Emergency Physicians Medical Group of Sacramento, resulting in one of the largest awards in California history. Some of the money will go towards current expenses and the remainder will be given to young Malyia, beginning in 2026 on her 18th birthday, at $16,000 per month. Although California has a damage cap in place at a quarter of a million dollars, this only limits damages related to “pain and suffering”. Medical malpractice attorneys believe that this settlement was properly designed to avoid the cap and attribute the amounts of money to different types of damages. Hopefully, this amount of money will help the young girl adapt to her new life after this devastating case of malpractice and will allow her to lead a normal life.
Medical malpractice attorneys have traditionally believed that the use of electronic medical records would actually decrease the number of medical mistakes and other prescription errors. With the increase in technology, medical malpractice attorneys thought that doctors and nurses would be better equipped to avoid preventable mistakes and injuries and reduce the potential for civil lawsuits. It is easy to see why people thought that better technology would help healthcare providers avoid unnecessary medical malpractice. Doctors, who are notorious for poor handwriting, would not have the same problems communicating data to others in patient charts, the equipment could monitor drug prescriptions to avoid dangerous mixtures, and hospital workers could be alerted easily of particular patient conditions without the hassle of digging through charts. However, many studies are now showing that the expected benefits of the new healthcare technology are not coming to fruition as fast as expected, if at all. The Institute of Medicine has also highlighted numerous dangers that could lead to malpractice and cause patients severe injuries. The report stated “although the magnitude of the risk associated with health IT is not known, some examples illustrate the concerns. . . Dosing errors, failure to detect life-threatening illnesses, and delaying treatment due to poor human-computer interactions or loss of data have led to serious injury and death.”