John Ritter's family files lawsuit

Why would ANY fool take emergency call in this country?

 

Ritters death was a tragedy. If I am correct he died from a dissection of his thoracic aorta. This is very difficult to diagnose. The symptoms mimic an MI and you have to perform very specific tests to establish the diagnosis. Some can be treated medically to start with some need emergency surgery. I've helped take care of two in my career. They were both diagnosed in the ER and died on the way to the operating room , this happened within an hour of the time they arrived in the hospital. Both cases went to court, I think one got an $80,000 settlement from the hopsital because they didn't move fast enough. the other was dropped.

 

This is exactly why I'm going to law school instead of Med school. Not because I want to sue people, but because Medicine as a profession is much less lucrative now, there is too much government intervention, insurance costs are OUTRAGEOUS, malpractice suits are a dime a dozen (and even if you win, you still spent probably six figures on defense).

It is crap! For the record, I will not be a personal injury lawyer, or anything like that. I'm sure there are some ethical ones, but none of them have a reputation as being ethical.

 

Taking ER call is required to be on many medical staffs. You don't have a choice if you want to admit patients to the hospital. At some for profit hospitals taking ER call is an option. This has created a huge problem because specialists may not be available for an emergency that shows up. In which case you may be out of luck. The specialties most affected are neurosurgery, orthopedics, OB/GYN. Unfortunately ER admissions are the ones that are the most likely to litigate. You get enough claims filled against you and you stop taking call if you can. This is part of the cost of compensating the injured. The trial lawyers must be very proud.

 

It sure is queer that the same people that complain about PI attorneys and jury verdicts are the same ones who do everything they can to get out of jury duty. If you think juries award too much in med mal cases, don't get out of your civil obligation to serve on a jury the next time you're summoned. It also amazes me that the Bush cronies who complain about PI attorneys and what they refer to as outragious jury verdicts in civil tort cases are the same ones that praise juries that give long jail sentences or the death penality in criminal cases. You either trust the jury system or you don't. After all, the criminal and civil juries come from the same pool of people. And, why wouldn't you want to hold a doctor or hospital responsible for their screwups? They sure don't mind charging you for their service regardless of the outcome. If plumber, electrician, auto mech., lawyer or other craftsman or professional screws up no one seems to get upset when they're sue.

 

I was being facetious with the commemt about fools taking ER call. I'm one of those fools. If I could eliminate ER call from my life, and all the misery that goes with it, I would happily stay in medicine for the rest of my life. As it is, I will be out of medicine the SECOND I am financially able.

 

Show me ONE plumber or electrician who is FORCED to take on a job that they don't want, that they are garanteed not to get paid for and are likely to get sued over, maybe to the extent that it takes their life savings.

It is inconceivable that a plumber would work under that circumstance. All surgeons, with the exception of a very few in speciality hospitals must do just that.

 

Just because there is a bad outcome doesn't mean that someone "screwed up". That is what a lot of people feel. That is why specialists that practice in high risk fields have higher premiums then docs who practice in low risk fields. It isn't because they "screw up" more often.
I too will leave medicine as soon as I am finacially able to.

 

My sister is an OB-GYN and obviously has strong opinions on the current system. Because of the extremely high insurance rates, many doctors are choosing to leave the profession. One woman left and became a school teacher because the net income wasn't much less and the associated stress was. You also have doctors who have left practice and are now "professional witnesses" in many of these cases. The money is great and you don't have the liability risks. It doesn't take a genius to see the danger in that. One of her biggest complaints is in the "jury of peers" system we use, feeling that most people aren't really sympathetic with the complexities and risks involved in most medical procedures--especially those emergency- and birth-related. But rather, they identify with the couple who is suing for $20 million because of something that happened along the way. Obviously, incompetence needs to go punished. But the system also needs an overhaul.

 

You would get sued either way. If you don't attend him, you are sued. If you do, same thing.

 

what do other countries do?

clearly our system is broken.

an ob/gyn friend of mine in AZ had to leave - he couldn't make a reasonable net income anymore in the state due to the insane malpractice insurance rates. AZ is one of those states with a constitutional amendment that jury awards can't be capped.

but things do get screwed up. nobody's perfect - and that's why there's such insurance.

if we simply adhered to "a jury of your peers" wouldn't we be in much better shape? remember, back when the framers crafted that stuff, the only people who could in fact sit on juries were well-educated, generally higher-class, wealthier folks - oh, and only white males.

i know some states (eg: IN) have medical review boards that lawsuits have to get past first. these MDs review stuff to determine if there was perhaps malpractice - or if it was just a crappy outcome.

the lawyers get beat up hard on this issue, but a small percentage of them have earned that perspective for all lawyers. it's very unfortunate. those "we get you money!" television ads speak for themselves as it regards attitude and maybe even ethics.

doody.

 

Doody, as I referred to in my earlier post, what I have seen in my 20 years as a PI attorney is that white high income folks and professions pull strings or use excuses to get out of jury duty. So what ends up on the average tort jury are members of the underclass that loves to "stick it to the man", and a rich doctor is "the man". Its the lottery mentality of the underclass. The folks you have to wait behind at the convenience store while they buy lottery tickets are the same folks that end up on juries. In fact, one of my questions in voir dire when I'm picking a jury is whether or nor you buy lottery tickets. If they say yes, I want that juror. So, the moral of the story is if you think jury verdicts are outrageous, the way to do something about it is not to protect the doctor or take away a potential victim of malpractice rights of redress, but to encourage other educated people including youself not to avoid jury duty but to serve with pride.

 

I had an uncle who was having pains in his chest. He drove to the hospital and when he got there, his heart was in bad shape and kind of exploded. There wasn't anything anyone could do, so they let him die. And.... that's that. Sometimes **** happens and there is no one to blame. If I have a tire blow out on the highway and a guardrail comes through my windows and cuts my nose off, no one can take blame for guardrails being strong and glass being weak. I hope there are good doctors al over the world but crap has to fall sometimes.

 

Yeah, but at least the PI lawyer would be dead. That's a bonus.

 

Hmmm...I wonder why healthcare costs increase every year at several times the rate of inflation. Anyone? Buehler? Buehler?

 

frank - what do you think the framers meant by "of your peers"? just "other human beings"?

clearly you believe the lottery-buying crowd works to your advantage. i certainly agree with you. therefore it potentially (if not likely) introduces unfairness into the legal process - that can't be good, can it?

i think the framers meant "people like the accused who would share similar historical, cultural (and maybe professional) frames of reference."

how some out of work fry cook can make a rational judgement on whether a doctor acted 2 minutes too late is well beyond my comprehension.

doody.

 

Judges in my comunity refuse to excuse anyone from jury duty unless there is aconflict of interest or the juror is sick. I don't know any doctor that has been celled to jury duty that has actually served. They are all excluded by the lawyers in the case.

 

I like doctors on some cases. It depends on the type of case and whether you are defending or prosecuting the claim. For example, I defended a Dentist against a defamation action. The hapless lawyer representing the pathetic plaintiff failed to exercise a peremptory challenge on a doc during voir dire. The doc. ended up being the jury foreman and was the decisive factor in my client walking away paying nothing.

I will also say this, defending doctors is as almost as tough as defending lawyers, and I've defended both. Many jurors don't like either. Almost all in a pool of potential jurors have had a bad experience of some kind with both professions. Many jurors see docs as aloof and arrogant and they see lawyers as slick and untrustworthy.

Thanks, Mike

 

Average yearly salary for doctors (in general or just surgeons or something, I forgot): 600k
Average malpractice insurance yearly coverage: 40k

I know this case is just ridiculous and should be thrown out, as with too many malpractice cases these days, doctors need to give up the 'I can't afford it' because they can. But to afford it they might have to give up their 360 that's on delivery, or their yet-to-be-broken-in Carrera Turbo, which they don't want to do. I know some RICH doctors...

 

But don't you want the best and brightest to be attracted to the medical profession?

I'd rather have a superstar with a stable of Ferraris treat me than Bob who was the only one who was willing to take the job netting $30k a year. Wouldn't you?

Problem with this system is they can file suit anyway, and even if the plaintiff doesn't have a strong suit, the defendant knows it will be a mid-6-figure proposition to defend themselves. Faced with a payoff of $200k to avoid suit, and spending $500k which is non-recoverable if you win, with the potential to have to pay $1MM in damages and STILL pay the $500k for the suit if you lose - what would you do? Can anyone honestly say lawyers don't file suits with the feeling they wouldn't win, but hoping for a settlement payoff?

I worked with a lady (gov't employee - nuff said) who was jogging and listening to her walkman. She ignored a do-not-walk sign and ran across a busy intersection and got clipped by a car, breaking her leg. She was totally in the wrong, but called one of those late-night lawyers who promise "BIG CASH SETTLEMENTS". The guy filed suit, and the drivers insurance co offered to settle for $60k. The lawyer got 1/2 of it. When I talked to her about this over lunch one day, I asked if she didn't feel responsible for the accident? She said she did, but had the driver been paying more attention, it would have been averted. When pressed, she admitted she precipitated the accident and she admitted that deep down inside, she knew it was not the drivers fault at all. But her excuse was it was the rich insurance company paying, not the driver, and that she wasn't paying out of pocket, so she figured "what the heck". The lawyer told her it was not worth going to trial over, but that he felt they could get a settlement.

After seeing the communications from her lawyer, it screamed extortion. If the ins. co refused to settle, they were going to drop the suit. How is that not just blackmail????

 

Only in America....