tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post3823181628571035792..comments2024-03-22T17:05:55.267-04:00Comments on MD Whistleblower: Stop Medical Malpractice: The White Coat Wall of SilenceMichael Kirsch, M.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/07555280388086931097noreply@blogger.comBlogger113125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-64714001546091316912013-11-25T13:16:58.075-05:002013-11-25T13:16:58.075-05:00Point well taken. Do you feel that patients have ...Point well taken. Do you feel that patients have some responsibility here also?Michael Kirsch, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07555280388086931097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-84890663454706813232013-11-24T20:00:04.433-05:002013-11-24T20:00:04.433-05:00In my experience, opinion, and extensive research,...In my experience, opinion, and extensive research, negligent medical malpractice is rampant in the world of "board certified plastic surgeons." Rampant and heinous. The cover- up, incredible pain caused, blaming of the victims, and lack of recourse is shameful. Many " board certified plastic surgeons" who are recommended as the "surgical reconstructive experts in their area", up-sell women who need reconstructive breast surgery on other procedures such as " a little liposuction" to "balance out their body". Once their body and health is absolutely destroyed, these women get blamed to boot. I personally know women who are fully disabled and in excruciating pain from these surgeons. The "lucky ones" are simply disfigured. This needs to be changed, now. There isn't enough money in the world to compensate for having a " board certified surgical expert" suction out your essential connective tissue during a breast surgery. Very few people seem to be taking this seriously. The fact that liposuction ever got legalized was a fluke based on the fact that they make people sign " consent forms", however, these forms do not give full, transparent information. It is the BS the surgeons tell women online and in private consults that the women listen to. Who is going to step up to help?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-82947222457123293792011-07-05T09:00:47.141-04:002011-07-05T09:00:47.141-04:00Good point, but almost impossible to recover attor...Good point, but almost impossible to recover attorney's fees or costs. You are referring to a 'loser pays' concept, which doesn't exist here. While this would discourage frivolous lawsuits, loser pay opponents argue that it could prevent legitimate lawsuits from being filed. I still favor a special medical malpractice tribunal that would filter out the frivolous from the legitimate. Thanks for your comment.Michael Kirsch, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07555280388086931097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-58945693831425764722011-07-05T05:16:31.675-04:002011-07-05T05:16:31.675-04:00What damages can be recovered for medical malpract...What damages can be recovered for medical malpractice? What about attorneys fees and the costs of pursuing a medical negligence case?medical negligencehttp://www.injury-compensation.ie/medical-negligence-claims/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-10398156824025552282011-02-10T09:54:45.309-05:002011-02-10T09:54:45.309-05:00This is such a great post.This is such a great post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-82156530088872386612011-01-11T02:50:42.905-05:002011-01-11T02:50:42.905-05:00Yeah, this is somehow true. It doesn't mean th...Yeah, this is somehow true. It doesn't mean that once an unfavorable outcome takes place, this can be considered automatically as a malpractice. In fact, this is a case to case basis. So, sometimes, it is not always the medical experts' fault for having something that is entirely adverse to what the patient had been expecting.student malpractice insurancehttp://www.malpracticeinsurancedirectory.com/ar/student-malpractice-insurance.phpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-18220525964215706982010-10-22T09:31:42.804-04:002010-10-22T09:31:42.804-04:00Please read this column published in yesterday'...Please read this column published in yesterday's New York Times. This is not the ranting of a right winger Tea Partier, but the views of a prominent economist who, until recently, was in the Obama administration. Please offer your comments on the blog. http://nyti.ms/bDqLCRMichael Kirsch, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07555280388086931097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-90873469845874013532010-10-14T18:54:18.812-04:002010-10-14T18:54:18.812-04:00I appreciate what has been said about physicians w...I appreciate what has been said about physicians weeding out other physicians who are not competent rather than railing against lawyers, the court system, and juries, to name a few. I also would appreciate knowing how physicians who have been sued handled disclosure, informed consent, communication with patients, apology (to the extent appropriate), attempts to settle cases, everything that occurred BEFORE they are served as defendants in lawsuits. Why not restructure the conversation, shifting it to: what are we, the physicians, doing to commmunicate with our patients before and after preventable medical injury? Build on what physicians are doing right, which is considerable, saving many, many lives, and what is working for physicians. How can we do more of our good work with limited time to communicate with each patient and create trust? Does blaming lawyers, courts, experts, and/or jurors create a better process for the patients and the "second victims"? Does it create learning, healing, community? Does it advance healing? Advance medicine? Advance community?<br />Although I am an attorney, I don't handle medical malpractice cases. I just seek alternative, healing practices that are effective for patients, healthcare providers, attorneys, families and communities. Thanks,Kathleen Clarkhttp://www.servantlawyership.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-55337728391031138712010-10-03T13:01:50.905-04:002010-10-03T13:01:50.905-04:00" we ought to replace the 12-man jury of emot..." we ought to replace the 12-man jury of emotional idiots "<br /><br />I always love this claim. Since the jury finds for the doctor 3 out of every 4 times, are they emotionally and idiotically attached to physicians?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-83765643903498051372010-09-22T05:39:15.080-04:002010-09-22T05:39:15.080-04:00Malpractice ought to indeed be fixed, but not with...Malpractice ought to indeed be fixed, but not with caps. we ought to replace the 12-man jury of emotional idiots with a three-judge panel of specialists. Then the process will be fair to both sides.<br /><br />But overall, even today, medical costs represent less than 1/2 of 1% of total healthcare costs, but the physician ordering of tests to cover their ass raise it to about 5%of the total. & those costs rise with medical inflation.medical malpracticehttp://www.injury-compensation.ie/medical-malpractice/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-76115695787319371152010-08-28T09:43:48.198-04:002010-08-28T09:43:48.198-04:00Definitely! Does it still count if several of the...Definitely! Does it still count if several of the comments are mine?Michael Kirsch, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07555280388086931097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-15974552343808091782010-08-28T06:22:17.757-04:002010-08-28T06:22:17.757-04:00100 comments! First time ever?100 comments! First time ever?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-34702800602104364182010-08-27T19:08:50.894-04:002010-08-27T19:08:50.894-04:00@LG, I never suspected you were an attorney. I do...@LG, I never suspected you were an attorney. I do suspect that you earn royalties from the book you have been hawking.Michael Kirsch, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07555280388086931097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-11289668059587164042010-08-27T17:35:47.440-04:002010-08-27T17:35:47.440-04:00I think Dr. Kirsch has spent as much time on this ...I think Dr. Kirsch has spent as much time on this post (and the comments) as it would take to read The Medical Malpractice Myth and learn the facts of the issue. Just a thought.LeisureGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05962143066390145440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-48672695893950277962010-08-27T17:26:57.147-04:002010-08-27T17:26:57.147-04:00I looked at Dr. Kirsch's response to my latest...I looked at Dr. Kirsch's response to my latest comment above and am a little puzzled. Does he (or any commenters) think that I am/was a lawyer? Simply because I support the right of people to sue for damages? <br /><br />I was a teacher, programmer, systems analyst, programming manager, product marketing director (software) and other things. Never a lawyer.LeisureGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05962143066390145440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-79910418188784215042010-08-27T11:57:42.990-04:002010-08-27T11:57:42.990-04:00@anon, I agree entirely with your last comment. I...@anon, I agree entirely with your last comment. I knew it was possible.Michael Kirsch, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07555280388086931097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-24909050813596730542010-08-27T11:50:47.737-04:002010-08-27T11:50:47.737-04:00I agree. But without a time machine, it's imp...I agree. But without a time machine, it's impossible to know the objective truth about every event. Consider that even two people with different vantage points of the same event may have two different versions of the truth. Neither are being untruthful, but they are simply seeing things from different perspectives.<br /><br />However, the goal of the trial is to determine as best we can the truth through the collective wisdom of the jury. Will they always get it right? Of course not - no system involving humans achieves perfection. And we try and give an opportunity to correct that with the appeals process as well.Former Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-30050712645494289812010-08-27T11:32:05.348-04:002010-08-27T11:32:05.348-04:00@anon, appreciate you candor. I do not think that...@anon, appreciate you candor. I do not think that truth is relative, even if it cannot be discovered in all instances. Regarding your comment: "And yes, the attorney is an advocate, but for his client's position, which the client presumably believes to be truthful. " That your client (or me) may 'believe' his position to be truthful, doesn't make it so.Michael Kirsch, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07555280388086931097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-81330681018013293042010-08-27T11:06:31.040-04:002010-08-27T11:06:31.040-04:00"I do not agree with this."
I knew that..."I do not agree with this."<br /><br />I knew that. That's why I had the caveat in front of the original comment. There's no point in rehashing it given how entrenched you are.<br /><br />I do wonder how you propose to deal with the US Constitution in all your proposed reforms. <br /><br />"I am willing to abandon caps."<br /><br />I don't understand this. You either believe they work and can support that belief with facts, or you simply believe based on blind faith in insurer propaganda. If you're willing to abandon them, then just do so. You'll be standing up for the rights of individuals, particularly those who don't have economic damages. And you'll be supporting one of the fundamental tenets of our nation - trial by jury.<br /><br />" Please list them, if you have any, rather than offer a narrative response."<br /><br />There is no "medical liability system." None. Doesn't exist. Just civil cases. <br /><br />I would like to make it cheaper to access, but given the costs of experts in medicine to testify, I do not see how. Perhaps you have an idea.<br /><br />But again, the Constitution quite rightly limits our ability to do the wholesale removal of the jury trial in this area, so at best we're working with procedural rules.<br /><br />I suppose one could develop a workers' comp style no-fault system, and with single payer I expect that's where we end up.Former Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-45186465517451382642010-08-27T10:55:31.675-04:002010-08-27T10:55:31.675-04:00"how have the damage awards for medical malpr..."how have the damage awards for medical malpractice, and specifically non-economic damages changed over the years?"<br /><br />Only the insurers could tell you that, and they don't release raw numbers. Generally, though, with regard to awards overall, they're going to track medical inflation. After all, the bulk of most awards is medical bills.<br /><br />So when you see a devastating injury with a high damage award, remember, much of that goes back to the medical industry, or to the health insurer that paid the cost via subrogation.<br /><br />And yeah, verdicts have gone up - because the cost of healthcare has gone up. 25 years ago, you get a particular type of injury, and you are pretty much stuck. Let's say you lose an arm. Now, with advances in prosthetics we have the ability to bring much of that function back. But that costs money.<br /><br />"Couple that with the rise of the entitlement mindset and you create, in a linear fashion as awards rise, a perverse incentive to sue whenever a medical outcome is not perfect. "<br /><br />Problem with this theory is that it ignores the economics of a plaintiff's case. No matter how much a client may feel "entitled" to a large verdict, the attorney paying the costs has to make sure it's economically worth pursuing. Simply because the plaintiff feels entitled doesn't mean the defendant's insurer agrees.<br /><br />And it ignores the fact that a large damage award typically means a pretty gruesome injury. Check out the injuries associated with 7 figure malpractice awards. I imagine few of those people would take the money if they could go back.<br /><br />You ask what framework we use - the framework is the same one that has been used for centuries - the jury. It represents the people of the community. I realize it's fashionable to think that juries all consist of sad sacks waiting to award millions to any sad story and slick plaintiff's lawyer while the defense sits mute, but that's just not the case.<br /><br />Juries are made up of voters, and last I checked, voters in this country were pretty evenly split between what we can loosely call "conservatives" and "liberals". And even the liberals aren't all out there waiting to hand millions to anyone with a sad story against their family doctor. If they were, physicians wouldn't win so much in front of a jury.<br /><br />Beyond that though, we have remittur from the trial judge, and the appeals process where damages can be knocked down.<br /><br />What you have to ask yourself about caps is how much power do you want the government to have v. the individual? Do you trust the people who heard the facts to determine the value of a case, or what some lobbyists decided?Former Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-5861785147964002762010-08-27T10:27:41.475-04:002010-08-27T10:27:41.475-04:00@anon,thanks for your comment. Regarding:"Wh...@anon,thanks for your comment. Regarding:"What I would tell you is that our judicial system is a search for the truth,"<br /><br />I do not agree with this. While the legal process can be truth seeking, I do not believe this a core value and function of your profession. We can disagree on this point. I regard the legal profession much more as advocacy, than true enlightenment.<br /><br />I am willing to abandon caps. I believe and have written repeatedly that they are flawed.<br /><br />Beside your suggestions to depose physicians at an early phase, do you have specific reforms to the medical liability system that you would support? Please list them, if you have any, rather than offer a narrative response. I look forward to your thoughts.Michael Kirsch, M.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07555280388086931097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-81423710139124945342010-08-27T10:21:58.154-04:002010-08-27T10:21:58.154-04:00OK .. let's talk about caps. Here’s another a...OK .. let's talk about caps. Here’s another angle we haven’t yet explored regarding the subject of damage caps. I’m curious … how have the damage awards for medical malpractice, and specifically non-economic damages changed over the years? Although I haven’t pursued the data comprehensively myself, conventional wisdom seems to suggest that these damages have skyrocketed. If so, why? Couple that with the rise of the entitlement mindset and you create, in a linear fashion as awards rise, a perverse incentive to sue whenever a medical outcome is not perfect. The percentage of the award that goes to the plaintiff attorney provides the same perverse incentive for them. As those damages rise, it creates the perfect environment for abuse of the system. What should the awards be? Are medical injuries worth 10x or 100x more today than they were 30 years ago? If so, why? Suppose a system without any caps. What framework could we use to determine an appropriate limit? Why not award 100 million … why not 100 billion? Most people would say that’s clearly unreasonable, but I wonder what they would say about a 10 million award 50 years ago (inflation notwithstanding). I realize that these arguments are nothing new, but I’d be curious to hear the opposing viewpoints in this blog.Kevin Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15372922743350101881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-46869175649262303852010-08-27T09:51:15.579-04:002010-08-27T09:51:15.579-04:00" that physicians are just whiners who don..." that physicians are just whiners who don't really have any problem and should just get over it"<br /><br />Kevin, I don't think you're whiners. I think you've been subject to so much propaganda that you think the "problem" is far greater than it really is though. And I do think you're asking society for some extraordinary protections yet offering little in return.<br /><br />I also think you've been duped in a lot of ways, for while you all support "tort reform", few of you realize that legislative tort reform is all about protecting the insurance industry and occasionally the pharmaceutical/medical equipment industry. Your high minded positions have little to do with the reality of the tort reform "legislation" for the most part.<br /><br />You keep saying both sides need to acknowledge that a "problem" exists. As best I can tell, according to you guys the problem is that sometimes you get sued and then dropped, and you'd just as soon not be sued at all. I've offered some solutions to that above. Yet all the tort "reform" efforts are just about capping damages. So forgive those of us on the side of the injured plaintiff if we're a little jaded with "solutions" that don't address the problems you complain of.Former Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-26125343591135029882010-08-27T09:46:58.707-04:002010-08-27T09:46:58.707-04:00"When an individual is found be be not guilty..."When an individual is found be be not guilty, who in fact committed the crime, truth was sacrificed, even if the judicial system functioned properly."<br /><br />I've actually been waiting for someone to bring up criminal law in this context, and you're right. Criminal law not only has to deal with a search for the truth, but also has to contend with the American society's hostility to government, in that it also is a check on the power of the state. The state has to meet Constitutional requirements for prosecuting an individual or that prosecution may be denied. <br /><br />". I think that most of the country would agree that lawyers are not charged to expose the truth, although you might regard this as a mere collective anecdote."<br /><br />I regard it more like this. Nearly all of my clients think I'm great. And they DESPISE the other side's lawyer, no matter how quality a person they may be. And many are really top notch, moral people. But you'll never convince my client of that. I'd compare it to politicians - everyone hates them, but they all like THEIR politicians, which is why incumbents get re-elected at the rate they do.<br /><br />" Are you arguing that the practice of law is a search for truth? If you can win that case, then I want you as my lawyer."<br /><br />If you can't be dissuaded from the belief that tort reform accomplishes anything other than preserving insurer profits despite mountains of evidence, I doubt even the most well crafted argument in a debate will reach you.<br /><br />What I would tell you is that our judicial system is a search for the truth, and a search to establish societal norms for action - ie the standard of care in a negligence case of any type. As a society, we believe that this is best achieved by allowing each side to put its understanding of the facts forward and a cross section of society (the jury) to determine which is correct. <br /><br />Now, is that always a pure search for the truth? No, and you wouldn't want it to be. After all, you no doubt LIKE having statutes of limitations, which necessarily limit the search for the truth. But a case being tried is most definitely a search for the truth. And the practice of law is part of that process. At least the part of it that is trying cases. Now, if you're drafting contracts, or doing probate work, etc. that's a little different.Former Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7323692122514281455.post-48170228710570135732010-08-27T02:40:44.929-04:002010-08-27T02:40:44.929-04:00Dear Kevin:
If anyone is against the ropes, its i...Dear Kevin:<br /><br />If anyone is against the ropes, its incompetent doctors who fail to address the 3 real issues outlined above in the "facts speak for themselves" post. <br /><br />No one can argue with a kid who can not get compensated because of caps. That is the cold, hard truth.<br /><br />Further, the Republican party which advocates for the spreading of tort deform is getting older and dying off. <br /><br />The best, although tragic, example of karma is having a medical doctor come into your office requesting to sue another doctor on behalf of his kid. "I'm sorry but there is nothing I can do, doctor, your kid just doesn't have any economic damages" makes him see the light in a heartbeat.<br /><br />Sadly, I know a few doctors and a few nurses who have had the above experience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com