Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster
The answer to the question of whethger medical care was faulty is the ultimate question. If you are contending that suits lacking any merit whatsoever are settled so frequently and for such significant sums that they dramatciually effect malpractice rates I would like to see the support for such a claim. I highly doubt this is true. If it is true, then your carrier needs to suck it up and try a few cases, becaseu a case lacking any merit will be defensed.
More likely you are talking about cases that you think have little merit but becasue the damages are so significant the small risk of an adverse liability result makes doctors pressure theiur carrier to settle before trial. This is reasonable conduct, of course, and is based not on a claim that lacks any merit, but is based on a claim that may be hard to prove or not have much meirt but which a jury, using the reasonable person standard and applying the burden of proof, might find professional negligence.
This is a very complex issue, and almost none of it is as black and white as you suggest.
I am sure it does reduce costs. I don't like it, becasue I don't think an access issue (which is what we started this thread talking about) should be solved by denying compensation to vicitms of mistakes. But I also admit I have not studies this at all (I do not practice MedMal) and so could be persuaded upon reviewing the approaches that are tried and how they work.
|
I agree that more of these suits need to be tried, and in fact, insurers are doing this more and more frequently. Hopefully, this is a problem that may solve itself.
The pressure to settle NEVER comes from a doctor. Any lawsuit settled makes your malpractice insurance more expensive. The commonest complaint in this arena is that the insurer was not willing to fight your case.
Overall, I don't have a problem with reasonable compensation for mistakes. I just want someone knowledgeable to decide if a mistake occurred. How is this different from patent law?