Fellas, you're shooting the messenger. This is an Americans with Disabilities Act case. You can thank congress for that one. If you don't like how a judge is applying that law, or think it is beyond the scope if its intent, you should be calling your congressman. Seriously.
Also, just for educational value, in my state you are not required to carry malpractice insurance but you appear on a list of "uninsureds" if you don't. As a practical matter we ALL carry malpractice insurance, think and discuss frequently our exposure in various situations, and must take at least twelve hours of continuing education, three of which must be ethics. There is a move to require everyone in my state to carry insurance and I support it.
In addition, we are subject to discipline for unethical behavior including loss of license. Here is the public record for my state on this:
http://www.vsb.org/site/regulation/d...ystem-actions/
Now I won't argue that my insurance is as expensive as yours. Its not. The reason is that for the most part on my worst day I can do as much harm (or good of course) as a doctor can. We also, on average, don't make remotely as much as you do. There are exceptions, of course.
Last, as much a MD's hate malpractice, that area of the law is nothing more or less than regulating whether the standard of care is observed. Lawyers have zero to do with where that gets set. It is set by you in every day as you practice. And of course in every case it is one of your brethren who must say you deviated from it. Every case must have an expert Dr. who says you did it wrong. Yes there are professional witnesses out there, but let me tell from experience that anyone is has a very large part of their income derived from giving testimony gets raked over the coals for it and loses a great deal of credibility.
Don't get me wrong, I think the out come of that case does sound silly. I'm just trying to persuade you that your ire is misplaced. (How'd I do?) :-)