...and every bad, or made to appear bad, instance of a silly result at jury trial, settlement or judicial decision is exaggerated and then publicized by the insurance industrie's paid public relations people.
I disagree with your statement.
The problem IMO isn't due to a "bad,...a silly result at jury trial, settlement" that is exaggerated. From what I've observed there is no need to exaggerate some of these claims, and especially not by "paid public relations people"!!! The problem with medical malpractice lawsuits is IMO the fact that no one is accountable for baseless lawsuits. If the result of a malpractice lawsuit were to be that the side that lost the lawsuit was liable for all of the costs of the trial, then IMO fewer cases would be filed. An attorney would completely research a case before considering taking a case to trial. IMO, some of the better firms who deal strictly with medical malpractice, already follow this process. They want to make certain that they have a clear case that they can win (or a case they can defend), before they commit to the undertaking in time and significant expense of a complicated trial.
By not having any accountability for filing a malpractice lawsuit, anyone can file a lawsuit...even if there is no basis for the suit. Often a malpractice insurance company will force a physician to settle out of court (even if they feel malpractice was not an issue) because it can be less expensive to settle a worthless suit, than to defend the case.
Maybe you have heard of settlements that didn't make sense, but what you don't hear mentioned are the thousands of dollars and hours spent fighting baseless malpractice suits. The result many times is that there is not an award from the trial...but the physician and the insurance company may spend a minimum of $200,000 or more fighting the lawsuit.
The practice of defensive medicine IMO is another result of baseless malpractice lawsuits. |
