Throckmorton is taken aback by the impressive list of symptoms and preconditions brought in by a patient who, it seems, is being prepped for a disability filing or some other sort of legal claim. The result: one of my favorite blog post titles ever. (Sept. 21)
They’ll have to assist unmarried women in giving birth even if doing so violates their religious scruples, according to a new California Supreme Court decision involving a lesbian applicant. As Bookworm Room points out (Aug. 19), and as we noted in the earlier Bay Area conscience controversy over gender-switch breast surgery, it makes a practical difference (if not one of libertarian principle) that there are plenty of other fertility clinics around San Diego that would be happy to step into the gap. The doctors in the case at hand might still escape liability because a ban on marital-status discrimination as such was not yet part of state law at the time they rejected Guadalupe Benitez; Benitez will win if she shows that the true motivating factor was her lesbianism. (Egelko, SF Chronicle, Recorder). The ruling also allows doctors to excuse themselves on the basis of religious scruples if there is a second doctor within the same practice — but not, apparently, a doctor across town at a different practice — willing to perform the work in question. And of course the legislature in Sacramento could readily help bring peace to the culture war by inserting into the law a generously drafted conscience clause — if it wanted to. More: Miller, IGF; opinion, PDF.
Blood should never clot, microorganisms should never happen, and one doc-blogger is on a tear (Aug. 14, more, Aug. 17) over the sometimes absurd hype being given to the concept:
“Never events” are and always have been “all about the Benjamins.” Look at this news release. The “background” section states that the “never events” were “required” pursuant to Section 5001(c) of the Deficit Reduction Act. Medicare wants to stop paying for things not because they “should never happen” but because it’s trying to save money. The whole “never event” moniker is just a spin they put on the cuts to make it look like someone else’s fault. Do “never events” never occur at government run hospitals? We’ll never know because CMS doesn’t even include government run hospitals on the “hospital compare” list.
In hospitals; medical; Medicare; never events
“Naomi Gadian, 21, from Manchester, claims that multiple choice testing discriminates against people with dyslexia” and is suing Britain’s General Medical Council and her college, the Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry in Plymouth, under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the U.K. equivalent of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (”Dyslexic medical student takes legal action against multiple choice exams”, Plymouth Herald, Jul. 30).
The story of well-meaning regulation, part 37,281: “Is an ignorant doctor really better than a tired one?” (Sandeep Jauhar, “The Nightmare of Night Float”, Slate, Jul. 30).
We hear frequently that the medical profession doesn’t do enough to police its own. Cases like that of Lawrence Poliner might explain why. In 1997, in response to complaints by nurses at Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas, and the allegation by a doctor that Poliner had performed an angioplasty on the wrong artery, the hospital asked Poliner to stop work while they investigated. These limited privileges lasted 29 days, followed by a unanimous decision to suspend, a five-month suspension from echocardiography privileges, and then reinstated Poliner five months later subject to conditions that he consult with other cardiologists.
For this, Poliner sued for defamation and under federal antitrust law, alleging that other cardiologists were trying to dominate the market and prevent his competition. The five-month suspension had federal immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11101 et seq. (just one of many federal tort reforms that promote safety), but the trial court held that the 29-day limited-privileges created a cause of action that should go to a jury. Poliner lost $10,000 in income over that time “but was awarded more than $90 million in defamation damages, nearly all for mental anguish and injury to career. The jury also awarded $110 million in punitive damages”–despite the fact that Poliner would have to prove damages were caused by the allegedly unprivileged temporary limitation rather than by the five-month suspension. We covered the initial $366 million verdict in 2004, the outraged medical blogosphere reaction, and the remittitur to a still ludicrous $22.5 million in 2006.
A doctor writes on the Kevin MD blog: “[M]eaningful control of the cost of medicine will have to go hand in hand with tort reform.” Read the comments, also.
A Health Affairs paper by Suffolk University Law Professor Marc Rodwin et al. has been generating a lot of press and blog attention for its claim that there is no medical malpractice crisis in Massachusetts. He and I have been debating the paper at Point of Law (Frank; Rodwin; Frank); as I show, that conclusion is highly suspect and seems divorced from the underlying data.
“Here’s one of their secrets: They’re not looking merely for cases of physician error; they’re also looking for unsympathetic defendants — for physicians who seem unfeeling.” (Shirley Grace, “The Law: Trial Lawyers Tell All”, Physician’s Practice, Apr. 1 (via KevinMD).
More: Coincidentally, the Times covers the “medical apology” movement this morning: Kevin Sack, “Doctors Say ‘I’m Sorry’ Before ‘See You in Court’”, New York Times, May 18.
Tort reform, of course, resulting in substantially lower medical malpractice premiums and expenses, and an influx of 7000 doctors, including into many underserved regions. One indirect benefit: with less money spent on medical malpractice lawyers, self-insuring hospitals can spend more on doctors and on medical practice:
Take Christus Health, a nonprofit Catholic health system across the state. Thanks to tort reform, over the past four years Christus saved $100 million that it otherwise would have spent fending off bogus lawsuits or paying higher insurance premiums. Every dollar saved was reinvested in helping poor patients.
Also of relevance: the amusing results when Texas added evidentiary standards of medical harm to their asbestos and silicosis docket. Suddenly, over 99% of the cases went away because so few suing plaintiffs had a doctor willing to certify harm. (Joseph Nixon, WSJ, May 17). Related: POL Nov. 6, 2006 and POL Nov. 7, 2006, where I debate Texas law professor Charles Silver on these issues. Suffice it to say that the last year and a half has provided more support for my position than his.
Update: more data at Texas Medical Association website.
Why they might be giving you a parting x-ray whether or not anyone thinks you strictly need one (Dr. Val, Apr. 2).
An important all-day conference at AEI next week:
In the last several years, nearly every major pharmaceutical company has paid hundreds of millions of dollars to settle allegations of illegal “off-label” marketing of drugs. There has been a growing trend of actions by federal prosecutors, state attorneys general, and cooperating trial lawyers to litigate against pharmaceutical manufacturers for allegedly doing too much to promote off-label use of prescription products. Citing recent legal changes mandating exclusion from federal programs after a conviction, many manufacturers say they are forced to settle rather than risk defending themselves–even as prosecutions against individual executives have foundered in front of juries.
At this AEI Legal Center event, experts on both law and health care will present papers on the law, economics, medicine, and public policy of off-label marketing, discussing everything from the abuse of class action mechanisms to implications for the First Amendment and medical malpractice. Speakers include former Food and Drug Administration chief counsel Daniel Troy; former Cephalon general counsel John Osborn; former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger; principal deputy assistant attorney general and acting assistant attorney general for the Civil Division Jeffrey Bucholtz; attorneys Brian Anderson, James Beck, Mark Herrmann, Richard Samp, and Kyle Sampson; law professor Margaret Johns; and AEI scholars John E. Calfee, Theodore H. Frank, and Scott Gottlieb.
Panel I: Off-Label Marketing, R&D, and Medical Practice
Panel II: The Legal Environment from Federal Regulation and Enforcement
Panel III: Distortions from State and Private Enforcement
Panel IV: Legal Implications for Commercial Speech and Medical Practice
Register here. Earlier discussion on POL: Feb. 1; Feb. 19; Mar. 24; Dec. 17; Aug. 31; Aug. 22 (Richard Epstein); Aug. 1, 2006 (state AGs); Mar. 19 (InterMune indictment).
41-year-old South Texas personal injury solo practitioner Hermes Villarreal was admitted to a McAllen hospital on April 16, 2005, reporting that his heart was racing. The hospital put him on a 24-hour EKG. Villarreal reported being under stress, but refused a psychiatric consultation or the recommended medication. At 5 a.m. on April 19, 2005, the day of his scheduled discharge, “Villarreal summoned the nurse on duty and requested a razor, saying that he wanted to take a shower and shave his chest, because the EKG monitor leads attached to his chest were bothering him.” The nurse complied with his wishes, and Villarreal locked himself in the bathroom and committed suicide with the razor.
This was, said Villareal’s family, the hospital’s fault; since it’s South Texas, a Hildalgo County jury, after a three-week trial, awarded $9 million in March (which looks to be reduced at least to $1.64 million under Texas law capping damages). Ironically, the opening line of the Texas Lawyer story says “It was a suicide no one saw coming,” but doesn’t question the resulting jury verdict.
Somehow, the trial lawyer, Raymond L. Thomas, a close friend of Villarreal’s, interjected himself into the closing argument, telling an emotional story of a Rolex Villarreal had given him as a gift that left the jury in tears; the press coverage doesn’t acknowledge the blatant violation of ethical rules (see also Texas Rule 3.04(c)(3)), much less indicate whether he got away with it because of the failure of the defense to object or a judge’s failure to oversee her courtroom. (Jenny B. Davis, “Attorney, Interrupted: Seeking Meaning, Recovery for a Legal Life Lost,” May 5 via ABA Journal).
In June 2004, we wrote:
In the complicated surgery to correct scoliosis, screws and rods are inserted and bone added into the spine. The risk of nerve damage or paralysis is such that there is something called the Stagnara wake up test, whereby the patient is woken during surgery to ensure she can move her feet. In 1999, however, Joshua Terry was one of the unfortunate 0.1% who was paralyzed during surgery. And, according to the newspaper account, his lawyer, Jay Kelley, found four surgeons to testify against defendant Dr. Ernest Lindell that “paralysis was not a potential complication” from surgery on the spine to correct scoliosis. A Lucas County, Ohio jury awarded $8.4 million to Mr. Terry and another million to his parents. And Dr. Lindell will no longer perform spinal surgery. (”Paralyzed area man wins $10M judgment”, Toledo Blade, Jun. 16; P. Stagnara, et al., “Functional monitoring of spinal cord activity during spinal surgery”, Clin. Orthop., 1973; 93: 173-78).
Perhaps there was malpractice in this case; paralysis is relatively rare, and one can’t tell the merits one way or the other from cursory press coverage. (Terry claims that Lindell “lost control” of an instrument during surgery, and it’s unclear whether that claim is the result of concrete evidence or a wishful inference.)
If the press account is correct, the plaintiffs’ attorney put a finger on the scale through expert testimony claiming that paralysis doesn’t happen except through negligence. Even a relatively well-educated lay jury isn’t well situated to resolve which expert is telling the truth. It’s another example of why the current litigation system is poorly situated to resolve disputes of this sort.
Jay Kelley writes us:
Trial lawyers like to repeat statistics similar to this (Bizarro-Overlawyered just did so this week) as an argument for medical malpractice being a problem of the doctors, rather than the lawyers. The problem is, as I noted three years ago, that the statistic is fallacious.
Some small X% of doctors responsible for large Y% of payouts is always going to be true simply by random chance. It’s going to be true over any time period: the problem is that if you take that time period and divide by two, the X% in the first half of the time period are going to be almost entirely different than the X% in the second half of the time period. Even if you were to fire every single one of those doctors in the tail in the first time period, all you have is X% fewer doctors; the very next year, it’s going to be a different small A% of doctors responsible for large B% of payouts, and you’ve solved nothing. With very rare exceptions medical malpractice payouts have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the doctor, and everything to do with the risk profile of their practice.
It’s worth noting Eugene Volokh’s excellent explication of the issue:
Lacking specialized knowledge in this area I’m not well situated to evaluate the contents of this letter from reader J.W., but perspectives and advice from medically knowledgeable readers would be more than welcome:
One of our friends apparently has focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, which has a substantial risk for progression to end-stage renal disease.Apparently, getting a nurse to come and administer albumin, which is a blood product, is a real problem. About three years ago, liability laws stopped the companies that produce albumin from allowing it to be used at home. There is a real possibility she will have to go to “Day Hospital” every day for five hours and perhaps have to be readmitted every weekend.
Given the likelihood that she will die from her disease, I’m sure she is comforted by the fact that she’ll spend so much time in the hospital for legal reasons.
But I feel safer, so that’s nice.
Point of Law Volokh