Medical Malpractice- Failed Attempts To Limit Lawsuits

[BLAZER PROPHET]

http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2012/07/john_kitzhaber_rolls_out_his_r.html

The problem is that politicians just don't get it. So the gov goes to plaintiff attorneys association to ask them how to solve the problem. And their answer is to offer a smoke screen that will ensure they always get their money. It's, literally, like throwing gas on a burning fire.

Kitzy has been such a huge disappointment to me. And I supported him each time he ran for office.

 

[Sedatedfork]

http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2012/07/john_kitzhaber_rolls_out_his_r.html

The problem is that politicians just don't get it. So the gov goes to plaintiff attorneys association to ask them how to solve the problem. And their answer is to offer a smoke screen that will ensure they always get their money. It's, literally, like throwing gas on a burning fire.

Kitzy has been such a huge disappointment to me. And I supported him each time he ran for office.

What they should do is change the expert discovery rules in Oregon so that the plaintiff's attorneys can't just hide behind an Attorney Affidavit to survive summary judgment.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2012/07/john_kitzhaber_rolls_out_his_r.html

The problem is that politicians just don't get it. So the gov goes to plaintiff attorneys association to ask them how to solve the problem. And their answer is to offer a smoke screen that will ensure they always get their money. It's, literally, like throwing gas on a burning fire.

Kitzy has been such a huge disappointment to me. And I supported him each time he ran for office.

So to clarify, the gov goes to the Oregon Medical Association and the plaintiff's attorneys along with other interest groups before coming up with the recommendation.

Don't think plaintiff's attorneys came up with an "answer" and gov is pitching that, which is kind of how I read your response.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

So to clarify, the gov goes to the Oregon Medical Association and the plaintiff's attorneys along with other interest groups before coming up with the recommendation.

Don't think plaintiff's attorneys came up with an "answer" and gov is pitching that, which is kind of how I read your response.

The plaintiff attorney association is concerned about one thing- money for themselves. They're like a union- 100% self serving. The only thing they propose is mediation before filing. So what? They way it is now is file, negotiate, mediate (or settlement conference), settle or not, trial. What they propose is negotiate, mediate, file, settlement conference, trial. They get a second shot at mediation that leads to more money. It may cut down on lawsuits, but not on bogus claims. If anything, it may raise the number of bogus claims.

What is needed is a possible deterrent to bogus claims (that lead to lawsuits).

If the plaintiff has, essentially, nothing to lose then the number of claims just continue to rise.

What is needed is a vetting process. What I would like to see is for every lawsuit over $50,000 you can negotiate (pre lawsuit) with the insurance carrier all you want. If that fails, then file and it goes before a medical/legal panel with 5 members. If they feels the case has merit, on it goes. If they don't (by a majority vote) the lawsuit can proceed but the plaintiff must pay for certain defense costs if they lose and those costs are not dischargable in bankruptcy. One state I know of does this already and it has cut down tremendously on bogus lawsuits.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

The plaintiff attorney association is concerned about one thing- money for themselves. They're like a union- 100% self serving. The only thing they propose is mediation before filing. So what? They way it is now is file, negotiate, mediate (or settlement conference), settle or not, trial. What they propose is negotiate, mediate, file, settlement conference, trial. They get a second shot at mediation that leads to more money. It may cut down on lawsuits, but not on bogus claims. If anything, it may raise the number of bogus claims.

What is needed is a possible deterrent to bogus claims (that lead to lawsuits).

If the plaintiff has, essentially, nothing to lose then the number of claims just continue to rise.

What is needed is a vetting process. What I would like to see is for every lawsuit over $50,000 you can negotiate (pre lawsuit) with the insurance carrier all you want. If that fails, then file and it goes before a medical/legal panel with 5 members. If they feels the case has merit, on it goes. If they don't (by a majority vote) the lawsuit can proceed but the plaintiff must pay for certain defense costs if they lose and those costs are not dischargable in bankruptcy. One state I know of does this already and it has cut down tremendously on bogus lawsuits.

I like that aspects of that model. But to go further, I think the panel should also come up with a figure. If either side side wants to proceed, and they don't prevail, they pay atty fees. So if plaintiff doesn't like figure, they can continue with lawsuit, but if they don't beat figure, they pay atty fee. If insurance company doesn't like figure, they can proceed, but if they don't beat figure, they pay atty fees.

That would get rid of lot of lawsuits. (get rid of bogus lawsuit and bogus offers) Maybe even do away with lawyers on both sides.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I like that aspects of that model. But to go further, I think the panel should also come up with a figure. If either side side wants to proceed, and they don't prevail, they pay atty fees. So if plaintiff doesn't like figure, they can continue with lawsuit, but if they don't beat figure, they pay atty fee. If insurance company doesn't like figure, they can proceed, but if they don't beat figure, they pay atty fees.

That would get rid of lot of lawsuits. (get rid of bogus lawsuit and bogus offers) Maybe even do away with lawyers on both sides.

That is already in place. It's called an "offer of judgement". Either side can file one.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

What they should do is change the expert discovery rules in Oregon so that the plaintiff's attorneys can't just hide behind an Attorney Affidavit to survive summary judgment.

BOOM! There we have it folks.

(I disagree completely, BTW- only JK .)

 

[Sedatedfork]

BOOM! There we have it folks.

(I disagree completely, BTW- only JK .)

Just curious, why do you disagree? I don't see the point in everyone wasting a bunch of money just to find out that the plaintiff never even had a case in the first place. Every other state has expert discovery.

Edit: How would you feel if you were sued for millions of dollars and the other side only had to file an affidavit that simply said I have hired an expert who will create an issue of fact? You didn't even get to see why the expert, who was saying you screwed up, says that you screwed up. In fact you didn't get to find out until that expert was on the stand or it was explained while you were at trial. Of course this cuts both ways. What if you were injured and the doctor never had to disclose their experts who said that they didn't screw up and why they didn't screw up. And you had to go to trial before you ever heard what their experts were going to say.