Doctors Fail to Report Abnormal Test Results At Alarming Rate
Posted by: Salvatore J. Zambri, Esquire
Doctors fail to report clinically significant findings to their patients in more than seven percent (7%) of the cases, according to the Associated Press, relying on a new study published Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Physicians' use of electronic medical records tended to lower instances of failures to inform. The frequency of errors is higher in practices that used a combination of electronic and paper records, as opposed to practices that relied on only paper or only electronic records, reports Nicholas Bakalar of the New York Times.
We encourage doctors to utilize the electronic technology now available to better communicate with patients and other physicians regarding a patient's symptoms and conditions. Reckless record-keeping leads to needless deaths and injuries. There is a crisis in this country--too many Americans die each year as a result of hospital and doctor errors. Nearly 100,000 people die every year as a result of hospital mistakes alone. Safety needs to be a priority as we move forward.
About the author:
Mr. Zambri has been rated by Washingtonian magazine as a "Big Gun" and among the "top 1%" of all lawyers in the Washington metropolitan area. The magazine also describes him as "one of Washington's best--most honest and effective lawyers" who specializes in personal injury matters. He has successfully litigated multiple cases against Metro and other automobile owners. He has also been named a "Super Lawyer" by Super Lawyer magazine. Our firm has experience pursing cases for patients that involve tragic medical errors, including the failure to properly inform patients of abnormal test results. If you need a patient advocate, we recommend that you read an article about medical malpractice claims authored by senior partner Salvatore Zambri.
If you want more information about your legal rights, please email Mr. Zambri at szambri@reganfirm.com or call him at 202-822-1899.
Comments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Federal Government Data Shows No Crisis in Medical Malpractice Claims In New York
By Catherine D. Bertram, Esquire and Salvatore J. Zambri, Esquire
In recent years, the insurance companies in New York have claimed that there was a crisis in medical malpractice claims which was essentially putting doctors and hospitals out of business. Were the claims of the insurance companies true? The answer, according to the federal government claims data, is a resounding "no".
According to a comprehensive report based on the federal data, written by Roberto LoBianco and Bill Mahoney of the N.Y. Public Interest Research Group and Arthur Levin of the Center for Medical Consumers. When you review the actual data from paid medical malpractice claims it is clear that New York's malpractice system has been remarkable consistent and stable. In fact, the New York medical malpractice settlement figures since 2006 show that the payouts in these cases have declined since 2006. Despite claims that doctors were fleeing from New York, the data actually shows that the number of active physicians increased by 20% from 1995 to 2008, even though the state's population grew a mere 6%.
The National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) was created by federal law and is managed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. All medical malpractice insurers are required to report their payments to this data base. The NPDB public use data file is the only publicly-available comprehensive malpractice database in the country since it includes payments from all insurers across the country. While the NPDB is prohibited from publically releasing the names of the individual doctors who have paid out on malpractice claims, it does release aggregated information about those payments.
Continue Reading Posted In Medical Malpractice , Public Health , Tort ReformComments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Merck & Co., Schering-Plough Accused of Fraud
Posted by: Salvatore J. Zambri, Esquire and Catherine Bertram, Esquire
Bloomberg News reports that "Merck & Co. and Schering-Plough Corp. were sued by a Pennsylvania fund for active and retired state employees over claims they misled consumers into paying too much for prescriptions of Zetia [ezetimibe] and Vytorin cholesterol pills." The Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund alleges in a complaint that "the companies have known for years -- and failed to make public -- that Zetia doesn't reduce fatty arterial plaques that can cause heart attacks and strokes." The reports commenst that two studies last year showed that "the pills may work no better at unclogging arteries than does an older, cheaper medicine called simvastatin." Nevertheless, the companies allegedly withheld the the finding and "used false and deceptive marketing techniques claiming Vytorin was more efficacious than and just as safe as the much cheaper generic," according to the report.
Our firm has experience pursing cases for patients that involve tragic medication errors, pharmacy mix ups and unsafe medications. If you think you have been injured by a defective product, we encourage you to read a portion of a book regarding products liability authored by senior partner Salvatore Zambri.
For information about your legal rights, please click here or contact us at Regan Zambri & Long, PLLC at 202-463-3030.
Posted In Cancer Misdiagnosis , Medical Malpractice , Medications , Obstetrics , Patient Safety , Pediatrics , Product Liability , Public Health , Tort Reform , U.S. Food and Drug Administration Warnings , Women's Health IssuesComments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Hearing Tomorrow On Medical Device Safety Act of 2009
Posted by: Salvatore J. Zambri, Esquire and Catherine Bertram, Esquire
The Subcommittee on Health will hold a hearing tomorrow regarding The Medical Device Safety Act of 2009. This is an important piece of legislation that should become law. We encourage our readers to contact their representatives in Congress and urge them to vote in favor of the bill.
The Medical Device Safety Act of 2009 is important for two principal reasons. First, it will allow every American patient to hold manufacturers of defective medical devices accountable for injuries and deaths caused by unsafe products. It will also prevent the manufacturers of defective devices from receiving total immunity from any claims simply because the devices were previously approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
On March 19, 2009, the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine endorsed the Medical Device Safety Act. They stated:
"Patients and physicians deserve to be fully informed about the benefits and risks of medical devices, and the companies making the devices should be held accountable if they fail to achieve this standard. We urge Congress to swiftly pass this legislation and to allow lawsuits by injured patients, which have been an important part of the regulatory framework and very effective in keeping medical devices safe, to proceed in the courts."
The New York Times has also endorsed the bill.
Medical devices can be extremely dangerous, and the FDA often does a poor job screening defective products from the public. If your doctor wants to insert a medical device into your body, ask questions to be sure your physician has sufficiently investigated the device's safety and effectiveness.
If you think you have been injured by a defective device, we encourage you to read a portion of a book regarding products liability authored by senior partner Salvatore Zambri.
For information about your legal rights, please click here or contact us at Regan Zambri & Long, PLLC at 202-463-3030.
Posted In Medical Malpractice , Medications , Men's Health Issues , Patient Safety , Pediatrics , Product Liability , Public Health , Tort Reform , U.S. Food and Drug Administration Warnings , Women's Health IssuesComments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Doctors Continue to Swarm to DC, Md, and Va
Posted by: Salvatore J. Zambri, Esquire and Catherine Bertram, Esquire
Doctors are increasingly practicing medicine in DC, Md, and Va. This fact flatly rejects the myth that physicians are fleeing because of medical liability concerns. The new figures from the American Medical Association (AMA) show the number of doctors has risen over the last five years and also outpaced the metropolitan area's population growth.
“The AMA’s own figures show that tort reform is clearly unnecessary, and may actually be detrimental to patient safety," states Salvatore J. Zambri, senior partner at Regan Zambri & Long and Past-President of the Trial Lawyers Association of Metropolitan Washington, D.C. According to a comprehensive study by the American Association for Justice, nationwide, all states saw an increase in doctors; however, the number of physicians per capita (100,000 population) is 13 percent higher in states without caps. In the four states that doctor growth did not outpace population (Georgia, Alaska, Utah and Montana), caps have been passed. Additionally, a study released in December 2008 from the American College of Emergency Physicians showed that states with tort reform scored far worse in patient safety.
“Safety improves when patients can hold negligent hospitals or doctors accountable,” said Zambri. “Tort reform will only help insurance companies that want to hoard more profits while leaving patients less safe.”
Posted In Medical Malpractice , Public Health , Tort ReformComments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Stalled Suits Against Drug Companies Now Proceeding
Posted by Patrick Regan and Paul Cornoni
Bloomberg News (4/30 Fisk, Feeley) reports, "Just two months after the U.S. Supreme Court decided patients can sue drugmakers over injuries from medicines approved by the government, long-stalled lawsuits against GlaxoSmithKline Plc and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. are again moving toward trials."
The Supreme Court's decision in Wyeth essentially states that federal regulatory approval (FDA) of a medicine or drug doesn't shield drugmakers from claims that patients were not adequately warned of potential side effects and other harms. The Wyeth decision has already affected more than 250 lawsuits involving at least ten different drug companies.
As the article explains: "Glaxo this month settled two cases on claims its antidepressant Paxil can make patients suicidal, after judges set trials citing the Wyeth decision. A Barr Pharmaceuticals hyperactivity-drug case is to be tried in August in federal court in Tallahassee, Florida. And a group of Bristol-Myers lawsuits over the blood-thinner Plavix may now proceed to trial in federal court in Trenton, New Jersey."
Posted In Product Liability , Tort ReformComments / Questions (0) | Permalink
FDA Meets To Discuss Device Approval
Posted by: Salvatore J. Zambri, Esquire and Catherine Bertram, Esquire
The New York Times reported recently that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will conduct a rare meeting to discuss its device division, which is responsible for, among other things, evaluating, monitoring, and regulating medical devices. According to the report, Dr. Donna-Bea Tillman, the agency's director of device evaluation, called an "all-hands" meeting. This comes in response to a letter from nine scientists who have written President Obama, charging that some in the agency have acted illegally, exposing the public to harmful, even deadly, products.
In the letter to President Obama, the scientists claimed that the device center inappropriately approved imaging studies designed to detect breast cancer and also allowed hospitals to wash and reuse device that were designed as single-use products, among other things. Congress instituted an investigation into the charges. In January, the Government Accountability Office released a report that criticized the device center.
To read the entire Times article, please click here.
We hope that the FDA will seriously evaluate its deficiencies and make the changes that are necessary to protect the public from dangerous devices.
For information about defective devices and your legal rights, please click here or contact us at Regan Zambri & Long, PLLC at 202-463-3030.
Posted In Men's Health Issues , Public Health , Tort Reform , Women's Health IssuesComments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Medical Device Safety Act
Today, medical device patients and attorneys from around the country will travel to Washington, DC for a Lobby Day to ask Congress to support HR 1346/S 540, the Medical Device Safety Act (MDSA). American Association for Justice member law firms and their clients will be joining in support of this important action.
www.stopcorporateimmunity.org/
Posted In Tort Reform
Comments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Legal Times: Plaintiff's Bar Pushes Hill Agenda
March 31, 2009 marks the beginning date for Congressional hearings for legislation designed to protect consumers. Legal Times recent edition summarizes battles facing patient advocates, including the attorneys at Regan Zambri & Long, who fight for patients and their families who have been injured or lost their lives as a result of unsafe medical devices, medication and other consumer protection issues. Senior Regan Zambri & Long Partner, Patrick Regan was interviewed and quoted in this recent article.
We have reproduced the Legal Times article in its entirety below for our readers:
Plaintiffs Bar Pushes Hill Agenda
Legal Times, page 1
David Ingram
03-30-2009
Trial lawyers are preparing for a fight in Congress over proposals that would open new areas for civil litigation, testing whether they can translate their newfound political capital into legislative victories.
This week, they’ll begin a public relations push starring a kindergartner and a former Major League Baseball umpire who say they were injured by faulty medical devices—a defibrillator and a replacement hip, respectively. They’ll be joined by others from 14 states to lobby for allowing state-level lawsuits against device manufacturers.
The question of whether to roll back federal pre-emption has simmered since last year’s Supreme Court decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, in which the Court ruled that federal law barred state-level claims for defective devices.
The plaintiffs bar is in its best position on Capitol Hill in almost two decades, with allies—whose campaigns they helped pay for—in control of Congress and the White House. Led by their trade group, the American Association for Justice, they have a wish list that begins with expanded opportunities for state litigation and continues with a ban on mandatory arbitration for consumer contracts, changes to when settlements can be sealed, and a new way to exempt early litigation costs from taxes.
The proposals have been overshadowed by the economy and presidential nominations, but few expect that to last. The start of hearings as soon as March 31 signals that lawmakers are starting to shift their attention.
"This is going to be the most active Congress that we’ve seen in a long time," says Linda Lipsen, chief lobbyist and senior vice president for the American Association for Justice. The association’s political arm ranked 14th in giving to 2008 political campaigns with $3.5 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Banks and other businesses made up most of the top of the list.
Lipsen says consumers would be the primary beneficiaries of the proposed legislation and possible changes in agency rule-making. "If you look at what occurred over the last eight years, it really was a return to the notion of caveat emptor—let the buyer beware," she says.
Victor Schwartz, general counsel of the American Tort Reform Association and a partner at Shook Hardy & Bacon, says consumers’ lawyers stand to benefit, too. "For years, all the trial lawyers did was play defense. They stopped bills," he says. "Now, they’re going to pass stuff."
COMING ATTRACTIONS
The House Judiciary Committee had a preview of the coming fight last week, when a subcommittee held a hearing on legislation that would allow active-duty members of the military to sue the federal government for medical malpractice. No such right exists now as a result of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of federal tort law in a 1950 ruling, but supporters of a change have been energized by the case of a Marine who died because his doctor never told him he had been diagnosed with melanoma.
Debate on the bill turned on the potential effects of having more plaintiffs’ lawyers involved in the military’s medical system. "Creating a special right to sue is not what will improve medical benefits," said John Altenburg Jr., a retired Army major general who previously represented the Army before Congress. Now of counsel with Greenberg Traurig’s D.C. office, he spoke against the bill. (The Defense Department has declined to comment on the bill.)
Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), who will play a key role in the passage of any changes to the legal system, sided with the bill’s supporters, who include the American Association for Justice. "I don’t know what some lawyers have against other lawyers," he told Republicans on the committee. "When you want a lawyer, you want a tough, aggressive lawyer, but when someone else wants a lawyer, it’s ‘Here we go into litigation again.’ "
Lawmakers have not held hearings this year on most of the items on the plaintiffs lawyers’ agenda. But beginning this week, repealing pre-emption of medical device lawsuits is likely to move to the top of the list. Supporters note the momentum they gained March 4 when the Supreme Court, in Wyeth v. Levine, ruled that federal law does not pre-empt state torts against pharmaceutical manufacturers. The ruling, which plaintiffs’ lawyers cheered, created a contrast with last year’s Riegel decision.
"There’s no real reason to draw a distinction between medical devices and the medication that’s approved by the FDA," says Patrick Regan, name partner in Regan Zambri & Long in D.C.
Supporters of pre-emption argue that manufacturers need to be able to rely on one national standard for safety so that they know when they’ve met their obligations under the law.
The proposed ban on mandatory arbitration for consumers has the potential to be a much larger fight. Provisions requiring arbitration are often included in standard service contracts, whether the contracts are for telephone service or for care of a relative in a nursing home. Businesses see them as a more efficient way of resolving disputes, while consumer advocates say most people never realize what they’re committing to.
"There’s unequal footing when a consumer signs one of these agreements. They’re long, they’re in fine print, and they’re complicated, and the consumer has no bargaining power," says Wayne Cohen, managing partner of Cohen & Cohen and past president of the D.C. trial lawyers association.
Two main bills would approach the arbitration issue differently. One sponsored by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) would institute a broad ban on mandatory arbitration for contracts involving consumers and employment. Another sponsored by Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) would apply the ban only to nursing home contracts—what some business advocates consider the start of a piecemeal approach designed to divide industries.
"The trial lawyers do better when they try to isolate parts of the business community," Schwartz says. "They pick the business community apart in little places."
Lipsen doesn’t deny the strategy. "The more bills you have introduced on a certain topic, the more interest there is," she says. "It encourages potential hearings on the subject."
THE RECESSION STRATEGY
Helping with the trial lawyers association’s lobbying efforts last year were a handful of outside firms, including Patton Boggs, Palmetto Group, and Forscey & Stinson.
Affecting the strategy for all bills about litigation will be the recession, which each side is looking to turn to its advantage.
"In these tough economic times the last thing we need is more lawsuits," says Harold Kim, senior vice president at the Institute for Legal Reform, which is affiliated with the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce. "Our legal system is already the most expensive in the world. The transaction costs are high, and they are extremely inefficient when measured against other dispute resolution alternatives."
Lipsen says families are looking for safe products more than ever. "These are issues that don’t cost the taxpayer anything," she says. "There are some real thorny issues with the economy that are being dealt with, but these issues of fairness and accountability and responsibility, these are issues that aren’t going to bankrupt the country. They’re just going to add fairness back."
David Ingram can be contacted at david.ingram@incisivemedia.com.
For information about your legal rights, please click here or call
the law firm of Regan Zambri & Long, PLLC at 202-463-3030.
Posted In Tort Reform
Comments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Texas Judges Agree: Tort Reform Unnecessary
A recent two-year survey of Texas judges shows that runaway juries and frivolous lawsuits are mostly fictional events and that tort reform legislation isn't necessary. To evaluate the nation's need for tort reform, Baylor Law School researchers surveyed a broad sample of trial judges, whose unique position allows them to view the same evidence as jurors, yet remain non-partisan regarding trial outcomes. Impartial observation of numerous trials over time also guards against the possibility that a judge would adopt broad generalizations based on individual, isolated verdicts.
Continue Reading Posted In Tort ReformComments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Angoff Report Reveals Record Profits for Malpractice Insurance Companies
The profitability of selling medical malpractice insurance has skyrocketed in recent years. Consequently, most malpractice insurance companies have routinely "over-reserved" (set aside more profit) than is necessary. These are among the findings of former Missouri Insurance Commissioner Jay Angoff, who recently analyzed the 2006 financial statements of the 15 largest medical malpractice insurance companies in the U.S., and issued a report entitled, "No Basis for High Insurance Rates: An Analysis of the 15 Largest Medical Malpractice Insurers' 2006 Financial Statements."
Continue Reading Posted In Tort ReformComments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Doctors Stress Over Medical Errors (And So Does Everyone Else)
Other blogs and the media have given significant coverage, lately, to a study by Washington University researchers highlighting the emotional turmoil American doctors suffer when they injure a patient through negligence or malpractice. The research is almost as interesting as the misplaced sympathies it seems to engender in media circles. The Joint Commission published the report this month in their Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, implying that many safety shortcomings in our health system are systematic, and perhaps not the sole responsibility of the system’s most visible custodians and benefactors. Policy pundits have echoed those sentiments. While few would accuse physicians of being disaffected or unconcerned by the injuries they inadvertently inflict on patients, fewer still would argue that they aren’t in a position to effect change, or that their responsibility for the health of patients is applicable only for the duration of seven-minute clinical encounter.
Comments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Corp(orate) Reform, Not Tort Reform: Absurd "Pants Case" Shows Strengths of Legal System
In an Op-Ed in the Montgomery Advertiser newspaper, Alabama Association for Justice President Bob Prince recently explained how the outcome of a $54 million suit against a metro dry cleaning business illustrates the strengths of the nation's legal system -- much to the chagrin of anti-consumer CEOs who peddle "tort reform." The piece is reprinted below in its entirety.
Continue Reading Posted In Tort ReformComments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Voters Worry About Corporate Crime, Support Pro-Civil Justice Politicians
An important American Association for Justice poll reveals that voters are significantly worried about corporate malfeasance -- especially regarding the pharmaceutical industry -- and aren't likely to rally behind political candidates who advocate tort reform. Less than a quarter of those polled believed that juries award too much money to victims of personal injury.
Comments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Recent "Lost Pants" Trial Shows That Justice System Works Well
For information about your legal rights, please click here or call
the law firm of Regan Zambri & Long, PLLC at 202-463-3030.
Continue Reading Posted In Tort Reform
Comments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Access to Ob-Gyns Continues to Increase Belying Malpractice "Crisis"
Continue Reading Posted In Tort Reform
Comments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Tort Reform Groups Are Data-Starved
For decades, "tort reform" groups have been desperately trying to strip American citizens of their ability and right to access the courts and obtain fair justice. In pushing their agenda, they have relied on data-starved rhetoric and biased opinions in order to influence the public to serve their special interests. Thankfully, unbiased consumer advocacy groups have challenged the rhetoric and, through comprehensive studies, have elicited the truth regarding the civil justice system.
Once such advocacy group is the Center for Justice & Democracy. Recently, this organization has conducted a comprehensive study of the civil justice system. Its findings can be found on its website at http://www.centerjd.org. Among other things, the study addresses jury verdicts, the costs of the tort system, awards of punitive damages throughout the nation, lawyers' fees, the impact of the justice system on medical malpractice premiums, and other very important issues. It is clear from the study, that the "tort reformers" have been greatly misleading the American public.
We at Regan Zambri & Long encourage you to familiarize yourself with the Center for Justice and Democracy's study so that you can stand up against the efforts of those to strip you of your rights.Posted In Tort Reform
Comments / Questions (0) | Permalink
American Association for Justice: New Name
Continue Reading Posted In Tort Reform
Comments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Elections: Victory for the Civil Justice System
Comments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Americans Against Politicians' Influence on Federal Judges
Posted In Tort Reform
Comments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Profits for Insurers Sky-Rocket
Despite what insurance companies want you to believe, there is no medical malpractice insurance crisis in this country. In fact, studies have proven that medical malpractice lawsuits have decreased throughout the country. So why are the doctors’ insurance premiums so high? Greed.
Continue Reading Posted In Tort ReformComments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Trial Lawyers Attempt to Help Doctors Lower Their Medical Malpractice Premiums
Posted In Tort Reform
Comments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Patient Safety Must Be the Heart of Medical Malpractice Liability Reform
In a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine, authored by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, they provide suggestions as to how our country can achieve the two key objectives, which are eliminating errors that cause patient's harm and fixing the medical insurance climate for practicing doctors. Clinton and Obama outline four key points: 1) reducing the rates of preventable patient injuries; 2) promoting open communication between physicians and patients; 3) ensuring patients access to fair compensation for legitimate medical injuries; and 4) reducing liability insurance premiums for health care providers.
We need to refocus on the key issues, which are patient safety. If we can make the system safer for the patients and the doctors who practice in the system, while maintaining a fair system of compensation for legitimate injuries then the cost of insurance for the doctors will also be reasonable and everyone wins.
Continue Reading Posted In Patient Safety , Public Health , Tort Reform
Comments / Questions (0) | Permalink
Hillary Clinton Introduces "Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act"
According to Seantor Barak Obama, a co-sponsor of the legislation, early disclosure systems, such as a program called "Sorry Works" really can work. Mr. Obama claims that, "(P)atients sue less, get compensated more, malpractice premiums go down, and doctors learn from mistakes."
According to Richard Boothman, Chief Risk Officer at the University of Michigan Hospital System since the hospital sytem instituted a program to discuss complaints and errors promptly after they occur, the system has seen "a sharp reduction in claims, insurance costs, and the time it takes to address complaints."
Posted In Tort Reform
Comments / Questions (0) | Permalink
American Medical Association Recommends Mandated Health Insurance
The American Medical Association recently proposed that all individuals making more than $50,000 per year be required to purchase health insurance. The proposal includes tax penalties for individuals who don't purchase health insurance as well as tax credits and subsidies to assist lower-income individuals in purchasing policies. "The AMA just took a huge step toward supporting universal health care for all Americans," said Dr. Jack Lewin, executive vice president of the California Medical Association, which sponsored the proposal. "Historically, the AMA has supported voluntary approaches, but never a mandate." Although Congress or state legislatures would need to enact laws to mandate health insurance coverage, the AMA's lobbying efforts have been effective in gaining government support for its policy statements in the past.
Estimates from 2004 indicate that about 45 million people in the United States are without health insurance. According to the AMA's suggestion, reforms in the insurance markets should also be made to keep plans affordable.
Health policy experts are also in favor of the individual mandate for health insurance. "It's really amazing how quickly the individual mandate went from an occasional discussion among policy wonks to something advocated by major players, such as the AMA," said Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonpartisan research group in Washington. "Broader acceptance of this idea may be the key to government's moving more aggressively to expand health insurance coverage."
Posted In Tort ReformPermalink
Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Study: Beware of Assumptions
A recent study by a group of Boston health-policy researchers of almost 1,500 randomly selected malpractice suits in the U.S. concluded that "the problem with medical malpractice litigation is not that too many undeserving people get paid, but rather that not enough deserving people get paid." Full details of the study are reported at Legal Debate: Assumptions on medical malpractice called into question: Science News Online, May 13, 2006 and The New England Journal of Medicine, May 11, 2006.
Posted In Tort ReformPermalink
Center for Constitutional Litigation Wins Two Important Legal Victories
The Center for Constitutional Litigation, PC (CCL) received two trial-level victories during the first week of February 2006. CCL is engaged in challenging laws that impede access to justice throughout the country. Additional details are available at ATLA's Court News.
First, in Alaska, a trial court denied the Attorney General's motion for reconsideration in Patrick v. State of Alaska, and upheld its earlier decision that the state's $400,000 cap on non-economic damages is unconstitutional. Four years ago, the Alaska Supreme Court, by an equally divided vote, rejected a facial challenge to that statute. This case was an "as applied" challenge involving a Native Alaskan, who had been "tasered" by a state trooper and awarded $1 million in non-economic damages. The trial court invalidated the cap on equal protection grounds last spring, but the Attorney General moved for reconsideration on the basis of new evidence, consisting of some 1300 pages of legislative history and studies purporting to justify the cap. CCL's Ned Miltenberg argued in a brief for the plaintiff that the "new evidence" could not be taken into account on a motion to reconsider, and was repetitive and unpersuasive. He supplemented the record with contrary evidence showing that Alaska had not experienced a litigation, insurance, business, or physician exodus crisis.
The second decision came in a CCL challenge to the application of the new federal vicarious liability law enacted last summer, which generally immunized car rental companies from vicarious liability. CCL attorney Andre Mura successfully argued to a state Circuit Court (trial level) in Brevard County, Florida, that the new law does not apply in Florida because the federal statute contains an exception that preserves liability for failure to meet state financial responsibility laws and that Florida has such a qualifying law. The judge ruled in favor of CCL's argument from the bench and will be issuing an order shortly. The case, Poole v. Enterprise Leasing Company of Orlando, appears to be the first case to test the application of the new federal vicarious liability law. If interpreted broadly, the federal law could preempt the laws of fifteen states and the District of Columbia, which impose some measure of liability on lessors in order to ensure that compensation is available to innocent victims of motor vehicle accidents. CCL expects that constitutional challenges to the federal statute will be mounted in those other states as well.
Posted In Tort Reform
Permalink
People Over Profits Action Network
Corporate America and the Insurance Industry are after More than Just Your Money. They want to take away your rights, knowing they can make even higher profits by keeping honest, hardworking Americans out of the courtroom. Please go to this website to find out how you can fight back and make a difference.
Posted In Tort ReformPermalink
Medical Malpractice Insurance Premiums Not Influenced by Patient Lawsuits
A recent comprehensive study by a leading insurance industry analyst reveals that medical malpractice insurance premiums are not influenced by patient lawsuits. The June 2005 report by Jay Angoff concludes, among other things, that "over the last five years the amount the major medical malpractice insurers have collected in premiums has more than doubled, while their claims payouts have remained essentially flat."
As Angoff's report details, the 15 major medical malpractice insurers increased their premiums by 120% even though their net payouts on claims increased by less than 6%. This amounts to a stunning increase in premiums at a rate 21 times the increase in payouts.
As with all other credible independent studies, this report confirms our belief that insurance companies are falsely raising the spectre of lawsuit abuse to exploit consumers and reap unconscionable profits.
To read the complete study, please click here.
Permalink
Medical Boards Fail to Protect Patients from Negligent Doctors
A recent comprehensive report published by a leading independent consumer advocacy group reveals that most states are not living up to their obligations to protect patients from doctors who fail to practice medicine in conformance with accepted industry standards. Public Citizen, a national non-profit public interest organization, collected data from the Federation of State Medical Boards on the number of disciplinary actions taken against doctors in 2002-2004. In an April 2005 report, Public Citizen concluded that the following states have the least effective disciplinary procedures: Hawaii, Delaware, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maryland, Nevada, Rhode Island, Arkansas, South Carolina, Washington, Tennessee, Mississippi, Michigan, Connecticut, and Florida.
Continue Reading Posted In Tort ReformPermalink
Doctors Sue to Silence Critics
Victims of medical malpractice are taking their opinions of their local doctors to the Internet, and a wider audience, and that has some medical providers on edge. In an effort to prevent patients from voicing their complaints and educating the public concerning poor medical care, many doctors are filing lawsuits in an attempt to limit patients' free speech rights.
Continue Reading Posted In Tort ReformPermalink
U.S. Department of Justice Says Federal Tort Filings Down; New Study Contradicts Claims of a "Litigation Explosion"
A report issued by the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that the number of tort cases resolved in U.S. district courts fell 79 percent between 1985 and 2003. Other key findings include:
-- In 1985, 3,600 tort trials were decided by a judge or jury in U.S. district courts;
-- By 2003, that number had dropped to less than 800;
Permalink
Maryland Law Limits the Rights of Malpractice Victims
In an emergency session of the legislature, the Maryland Patients' Access to Quality Health Care Act of 2004 was passed over Governor Ehrlich's veto.
The bill freezes the amount of compensation a jury can award for pain and suffering damages at $650,000 until December 25, 2008 (after which it will increase $15,000 per year) and reduces the cap on damages in death cases from $1.6 million to $812,500. This cap applies only to medical malpractice cases.
The bill also requires doctors who testify in malpractice suits to be familiar with the specialty of the doctor they testify against, encourages settlement of malpractice cases by mediation, and creates a people's counsel to represent citizens before the Maryland Insurance Administration.
To read the unofficial language of the bill, please click here.
Posted In Tort ReformPermalink
Immunity for Vioxx Makers? The Dirty Secret About the U.S. House Medical Malpractice Bill
One dirty little secret about the so-called "Medical Malpractice Bill" (H.R. 5) pending in the U.S. House of Representatives is that hidden in the bill are unfair product liability protections for the drug industry: sweeping immunities that will make it impossible for people injured or killed by unsafe drugs—like Vioxx—to hold drug manufacturers accountable.
For instance, H.R. 5 protects drug makers by capping damages for any injury, even death, at $250,000. Thus, no matter how serious the injury it causes, and no matter how negligent its misconduct, a drug company like Merck will never have to pay more than $250,000 in compensation for noneconomic loss to patients and families who are injured or killed by defective drugs. The bottom line is that, under H.R. 5, drug companies will keep their profits while injured people are denied justice.
Permalink
Report Reveals Malpractice Insurance Price Gouging
A recently released study of medical malpractice insurance premiums charged by insurance companies supports what we have been saying for several years: payments to innocent malpractice survivors are not responsible for increased malpractice insurance premiums. The study, released in July 2005, suggests that doctors are victims of price-gouging by insurance companies who continue to raise malpractice insurance premiums even as claims decline.
According to the Attorney General of one state: "The data in the Annual Statements filed under oath with state insurance departments, which this Report discloses, call into question much of what the medical malpractice insurance industry has been saying publicly during the past several years." Click here for the full article text.
"The numbers underscore the need for much tougher, more aggressive oversight to prevent and punish profiteering," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said. "Federal and state regulators should thoroughly scrutinize recent rate increases and take appropriate corrective action."
Permalink