I’m moderating a panel with this title Monday afternoon at 3 at AEI.
The U.S. Senate has announced that it will be debating new legislation to reform America’s medical malpractice law in early May. Is the Senate likely to pass useful reforms? What types of reform should they consider? What is the appropriate role of the federal government in addressing the issue and what are the potential conflicts between the federal government and the states?
At this AEI event, a distinguished group of panelists will discuss the questions surrounding federal medical malpractice reform. The panel will include Michael S. Greve, the John G. Searle Scholar at AEI and director of the institute’s Federalism Project; George L. Priest, the John M. Olin Professor of Law and Economics at Yale Law School; and Dr. Stuart Weinstein, the current chairman of Doctors for Medical Liability Reform and the Ignacio V. Ponseti Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at the University of Iowa.
Admission is free.
9 Comments
“Overlawyered” Plus “Overpaneled” Equals Nothing But Fewer Patient Rights
Sound the trumpets!! Stop the presses!! Overlawyered posts this announcement from Ted Frank:
“The U.S. Senate Takes On Medical Malpractice Reform”
Ted: Thank you for including doctors on your panel.
Standard tort reform is associated with a modest 15% drop in malpractice insurance rates. It is not impressive.
A better deterrent to the majority of claims that have no merit is to pass legislation permitting successful defendants to sue plaintiff attorney for legal malpractice, if a certifying expert attests to it. Plaintiff attorneys have many express duties enumerated in the Rules of Civil Procedure, Evidence, and Conduct.
Let torts do its work on the plaintiff bar. Let’s see if the plaintiff bar believes in torts when it applies to them.
A splendid idea. But what say you to also requring plantiffs to produce an expert witness (or two) UP FRONT to any claim of malpractice or negligence . . . not some paid “medical whore for hire” . . . but a non-competing physician practicing in the defendant’s specialty?
Can you provide a link to the text of the proposed legislation? The AMA has sent out a “call to arms”, wanting physicians to call their representatives and support the bill (S.22), but the AMA does not provide the text of what it is they expect doctors to support.
15% not impressive? Spoken like one who doesn’t have the bill to pay!
Establishing a statutory duty of care between a plaintiff lawyer and the adverse party? Novel, to say the least.
Why not talk about going to the British system?
Isn’t there already a duty to tell the truth? And if a plaintiff’s attorney knows his case is trash but files to shake (down) the tree anyway, shouldn’t he/she answer for it?
British system of what? Medicine or law?
nonsuit, your suggesting that the presentation of a weak claim is the equivalent of lying in court? Is the problem with medical malpractice litigation really fraudulent lawsuits, or the expansion of “fault” to insure every patient against the risk of a bad outcome?
I was referring to the British system of litigation, where the loser of the suit is responsible for the attorney’s fees of the winner.
I am suggesting that malpractice suits get filed that should not get filed (because there is NO evidence of negligence or a failure to meet accepted standards of care) . . . and when this happens, the plaintiff’s attorney generally KNOWS they should not get filed . . . he or she is just trying to extort. So the answer to your question is YES, and YES.
It goes back to the question, couldn’t a lot of this
“frivolous litigation” garbage be stopped in its tracks if plaintiffs’ attorneys were required to present an expert’s testimony (and again, I’m not talking about a “medical whore for hire”) when the claim is filed? I mean, if you are going to allege negligence or malpractice, shouldn’t the doctor you accuse be able to see what your argument is up front rather than months or years down the road?
Lying in court, in my experience, is regarded as no big deal – even when when someone is caught red-handed. It’s not prosecuted unless you’re Martha.
Good for the British!
“The U.S. Senate has announced that it will be debating new legislation to reform America’s medical malpractice law in early May. Is the Senate likely to pass useful reforms?”
BFD and NO the senate or congress as a whole woll NOT do one thing to help the people!
YOU can bank on it.
This is the kind of stuff that sould be on the futures exchange rather than oil! Then some of us could really make some money!
Alas, you are right TC. As I noted earlier, the AMA sent out a “call to arms” for physicians to support the new Senate legislation (S.22), but did not see fit to provide a copy of the legislation we’re supposed to support.
In terms of helping “the people”, the AMA also knows that medical peer review in this country is a joke – and has done nothing whatsoever to reform that process – to make it more effective (in disciplining “bad” doctors) or fair (i.e. not just an economic weapon to zap a pesky/innocent competitor). Right now medical peer review is a monument to cowardice and mediocrity.
Reforming that process is something that probably needs to be done BEFORE you start talking about capping damages.