On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:04:51 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> The cost of malpractice issues is going to show up somewhere, though. If
> you make it so that doctors are not liable for more then lets say
> 100grand, what happens to the person that they really screw up? 

Sure, there are legitimate cases where there is negligence on the part of 
the doctor.  I don't think there's anywhere near as many cases of it as 
are heard (or won), though.  For the insurance companies and the doctors, 
it's often cheaper to settle than to litigate.  Except that that's what 
drives the premiums up.

> My
> cousin is suing a doctor, it's been in the local paper several times so
> I don't mind mentioning it, because he royally screwed up. Other doctors
> looked at his notes, said they were wrong, they checked the surgical
> site and pointed out all he did wrong. She had a good job, and the jury
> found that, between lost wages and further treatment, with minimal pain
> and suffering, they awarded over 3 million. The state doesn't allow for
> that much. So, instead of taking the money from the doctor, she gets to
> take it from the state in the form of state health care and subsidies:
> also called taxes.

I would agree that the state was in the wrong here by limiting a 
reasonable award.

> Anyone disabled puts a sink on the economy, in some way. It's mitigated
> by various means. But the current trend of limiting state health care
> due to malpractice while at the same time limiting malpractice law suits
> is just asking for trouble.

I would agree with that.  The problem is that there are many cases where 
awards are given that are far in excess of what is "reasonable".  
Punitive damages against a doctor who engages in willful misconduct are 
not called for; suspension of the doctor's license is.

> I mean, what do you call the student who graduated last of their class
> from med school?

"Doctor".  Yeah, I know that one.

Jim

Post a reply to this message