Medical malpractice litigation is not to blame for the relatively high
cost of health care in the United States, according to a Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health study published yesterday in the
journal Health Affairs.

Source:  Rednova.com

In 1997 this child was born premature and was burned when a cauterizing tool was used near a respirator sparking a flash fire.  The child suffered long term lung damage and burns.

Now the case seemed to turn around whether the long term lung damage was actually caused by the fire or by the prematurity.  Nevertheless, the jury returned a $8.25 verdict against the hospital.

Sources:  Detroit News Brief,  Detroit News 5/28/05 article

In what I consider to be an unfair ending, the state law in Michigan takes most of the verdict and reduces it to $375,000.  In this case the jury decided that the lung damage was not caused by the fire, BUT they clearly decided that the burn damage was worth $8 Million over the child’s lifetime.  Michigan law takes all that analysis away and arbitrarily decides that all pain and suffering is worth what the state law says.

The hospital admitted responsibility for the burns and Brooks told the jury to award for the burns to the skin as they felt justified. The jurors said they were all close when they each offered an opinion on what was fair, and then they averaged them out, reaching $8 million.

But Fieger’s co-counsel, Ven Johnson, railed on the state Legislature for making laws that undo what the jury intended, reducing this award size to $375,000. Combined with the economic damages, the Laportes could receive as little as $575,000.

Jurors were not told during the trial that non-economic damages are automatically limited.

"This shows how sad the Michigan system is," Johnson said, adding that the law was created by former Gov. John Engler and Republican leaders to "trick juries into believing plaintiffs would have received full compensation. You have a law that is intentionally slanted in the favor of the guilty party. That is tragic.

"Their system right now is anti-victim. This baby did nothing wrong."

Don’t get hurt or have a malpractice claim in Michigan.  The state government there doesn’t believe your injuries are worth anything.

Source:  The Oakland Press

How many studies is this?  3? 4?  Here is another study showing that rising medical malpractice premiums are not caused by medical malpractice verdicts.

Medical malpractice awards are rising
in line with health care costs and are not likely the main
driver of soaring malpractice premiums as portrayed by many
doctors, a study suggested on Tuesday.

The data analysis of 184,500 malpractice payments from 1991
through 2003 from a national data bank was published in the
journal Health Affairs, dated June 1.

It found that the cases that get the most publicity — like
botched caesarian births or operation on a wrong body part –
are a fraction of all malpractice awards.

Source:   Reuters at Yahoo

From the Washington Post today… DC Malpractice Awards Decline

Payments to patients who sue doctors in the District have declined
dramatically, even as doctors and politicians have blamed skyrocketing
jury awards for driving up the cost of malpractice insurance and
driving doctors out of business, according to a study released
yesterday.

Source.  Washington Post and Yahoo

Two links today.  The first to a story about a study done by a Duke University professor.  His conclusions…The increase in medical malpractice premiums in Illinois is NOT due to the tort system.

"The Illinois tort system does not appear to be the cause of the
undisputed fact that doctors’ liability insurance premiums showed dramatic
rises," Vidmar concludes. "It is time to consider other causes."

Source:  Illinois State Bar Association

The second story is about a lady who had a mastectomy when she did not need one.  The lab mixed up the results. She never had Breast Cancer.

Source:  WBBM Chicago

Just 5 percent of American doctors are responsible for half the
malpractice in the United States, according to a new analysis of
federal data by the consumer group Public Citizen.

"The medical community alleges that medical liability litigation
constitutes a giant ‘lottery,’ in which lawsuits bear no relationship
to the care given by a physician," said Public Citizen President Joan
Claybrook. "In reality, a small percentage of doctors are responsible
for the bulk of malpractice in the United States, and only better
oversight by state medical boards, not draconian limits on patients’
legal rights, can reduce the tens of thousands of deaths and injuries
they cause."

Read the rest of this entry »

I read this in an email this afternoon.  This is a pretty comprehensive review of all the pending malpractice bills in the state legislatures.  This is quite an impressive list.

It can be found at the National Conference for State Legislatures

If you thought for a moment that the insurance industry was not coming after this issue, then just look at the numbers.  Just the fact that this type of bill is being considered in 39 different states should tell you.  See if your state is listed.

Well maybe some good news here from Washington.  That feels like an odd thing to type.  Is it actually possible to have good news come out of Washington?  But I digress.

The Washington Post has a report out on the status of George Bush’s efforts to attack medical malpractice lawsuit in this country.  It does not appear to be going well for him and that is good news for the civil justice system.  The President was trying to ram this bill through while riding on his "mandate".  As the article points out he did get a Class Action bill passed, but that was the "low hanging fruit".

The malpractice bill he wanted was bad.  It attacked the people who actually had claims by limiting the amount of recovery to an ARBITRARY amount.  I’ve said it before if you want to limit frivolous lawsuits, then set up some sort of easy screening system.  New Hampshire has proposed this system and it has passed part of its House.  See my post on my New Hampshire law blog.