Medical Malpractice Immunity Bills

[Wild Bill]

I recently received this email and was wondering if anyone had any knowledge about these bills. A medical professionals opinion would be especially helpful.

 

 

I have begun an online Petition addressed to: Concerned Citizens re: Medical Malpractice Immunity Bills at http://www.change.org/petitions/concerned-citizens-re-medical-malpractice-immunity-bills-urge-your-senators-to-not-support-the-medical-malpractice-immunity- and would urge each of you to link onto it, read it and sign it. The online Petition was posted on Sunday, May 20, 2012 and has now been signed by over 800 concerned citizens. I am urging all Michiganders to Oppose the “Medical Malpractice Immunity Bills” that have been introduced by Senator Roger Kahn. These bills are formally known as: SB 1110, SB 1115, SB 1116, SB 1117 and SB 1118.

Your URGENT help is needed. Legislation has recently been introduced into the Michigan Senate that would grant legal and economic immunity to doctors, hospitals and their insurance companies.

 

If passed into law, negligent doctors would get a free pass and not be held accountable for their actions. Taxpayers would bear the burden of providing for those injured the worst because the right to bring a medical malpractice claim would effectively be destroyed.

Many families would suffer significant economic losses.

These proposals are bad law and very dishonest as written. They have nothing to do with protecting patients in Michigan. They would make it virtually impossible for any patient injured or killed by a doctor's wrongdoing to bring a medical malpractice claim. On top of that, for what little rights are left, they would severely limit a patient's right to recover damages, particularly for those with the most severe injuries.

Please also forward a copy of this email to all of your family and friends and ask them to do the same.

We can make a difference by signing this Petition and voicing our objections to the implementation of these Bills.

 

[Dr. Bob]

First glance it appears to be a scare tactic. I'll look into it now, starting with actually seeing what the bills say. That is the first step in any evaluation, look at the primary source information.

 

Dr. Bob

[Restorium2]

Know your senators. Kahn is almost always trouble. He's in his final days and burning bridges. We need to replace him with a Dem. That's what's most important about Kahn. Fight him, then replace him with someone better.

[Dr. Bob]

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billintroduced/Senate/pdf/2012-SIB-1110.pdf This bill limits malpractice liabilty to 'gross neglegence' in an emergency situation. Examples have to do with dealing with a patient with a heart attack for example- they come into an emergency room, no one knows them from Adam, old records are not available, immediate treatment MUST occur. Where this would come into play is if the ER doctor gave them a drug to which they were allergic (but he/she didn't know that because the records weren't available), recognized the reaction and treated it correctly and properly. That is not gross neglegence, and the jury would have to be instructed that the doctor had NO way of knowing the patient was allergic. On the other hand, if the ER doctor gave a 'clot buster' to the same patient, the patient had a bleed in their brain, and it wasn't discovered until later because they didn't check or the doctor misdiagnosed the heart attack in the first place and sent them out with an antacid, they Would be liable.

 

My feeling on this is that doctors aren't mind readers, and this type of situation is different than routine care with your regular doctor. I think it needs to be defined better, but overall it isn't all that far out of a concept. I think most would see that point.

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(e0w4fr452ylb2sbmftl5npz5))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2012-SB-1115&query=on

 

This bill has to do with caps on Non-Economic damages. Looks like it has a lot of work, but has nothing to do with covering medical expenses, lost wages, or any actual expenses or care costs. It has to do with things like pain and suffering, loss of companionship, etc. Caps claims for those to around a quarter to half million dollars.

 

I think I am going to stop there. It looks like it was a posting by Trial Lawyers designed to mislead the general public about what the bills actually are. Example:

 

If passed into law, negligent doctors would get a free pass and not be held accountable for their actions. Not really, malpractice cases would still be filed. The only difference is that doctors would have some limited protection if they didn't know something they didn't have a way of knowing. Gross neglegence is still grounds for a case in any event. Most successful malpractice cases are for gross neglegence anyhow. If I miss your vein on the first try and have to stick you again, that isn't malpractice, it is a simple mistake. If I operate on the wrong knee, that is gross neglegence and you can sue away.

 

Taxpayers would bear the burden of providing for those injured the worst because the right to bring a medical malpractice claim would effectively be destroyed. See above, this is just a scare tactic.

 

Many families would suffer significant economic losses. Bills only discuss limits to NON ECONOMIC Damages. Ok you can't get 20 mill because you can no longer walk your dog. But you can get over $250K and they still have to pay for your leg to be fixed or replaced. Make up your own mind on this one, but it isn't the end of malpractice cases.

 

These proposals are bad law and very dishonest as written. They have nothing to do with protecting patients in Michigan. They would make it virtually impossible for any patient injured or killed by a doctor's wrongdoing to bring a medical malpractice claim. On top of that, for what little rights are left, they would severely limit a patient's right to recover damages, particularly for those with the most severe injuries. Scare tactics, read the bills yourself. They do nothing of the sorts. You can still sue for cause, it won't lower my malpractice insurance premiums, and a lawyer will still take your case if you actually have one, same as before.

 

Now your turn to do a little research. Find out WHO posted this petition. Are they a trial lawyer or some PAC with a dog in the fight?

 

Dr. Bob

[Wild Bill]

Thanks for taking a look at these. I'm never sure about info from the web and appreciate an opinion from someone who is more knowledgable about the issues in question.

 

As an aside, I remember when my son was born in 1982 the OB/GYN had to pay $80,000 in malpractice premiums.

 

So, before the doctor could help any patients he had to come up with $80,000. That was 30 years ago so I'm sure it costs more now.

 

Just in case you wondered why medical costs are so high.

[Restorium2]

The question is:

Do we need this enough to write more laws for?

 

Probably not. The jury could make this determination on their own. What this does is limit a jury's power to decide for themselves if a doctor is guilty of malpractice and what the award should be. This erodes We The People's power. Go figure, it's Republican Senator Kahn's Law after all. For your information, he is a doctor.

[Celliach]

I'm against any malpractice reform submitted by republicans. They want to take away our right to sue when a negligent doctor kills your daughter, or put a cap on compensation, usually $200,000. Is your daughter's life worth $200,000?

[Restorium2]

Thanks for taking a look at these. I'm never sure about info from the web and appreciate an opinion from someone who is more knowledgable about the issues in question.

 

As an aside, I remember when my son was born in 1982 the OB/GYN had to pay $80,000 in malpractice premiums.

 

So, before the doctor could help any patients he had to come up with $80,000. That was 30 years ago so I'm sure it costs more now.

 

Just in case you wondered why medical costs are so high.

He said it WOULD NOT lower his malpractice premiums.

[Wild Bill]

He said it WOULD NOT lower his malpractice premiums.

 

In my experience, once the price of anything goes up, it never goes down again especially insurance.

 

Unless you can find a cheap Chinese knock-off at Walmart.

[Dr. Bob]

Thanks for taking a look at these. I'm never sure about info from the web and appreciate an opinion from someone who is more knowledgable about the issues in question.

 

As an aside, I remember when my son was born in 1982 the OB/GYN had to pay $80,000 in malpractice premiums.

 

So, before the doctor could help any patients he had to come up with $80,000. That was 30 years ago so I'm sure it costs more now.

 

Just in case you wondered why medical costs are so high.

 

OB is high risk because you are dealing with children with a lifetime of needs from CP and other devastating conditions. Internal Med like me runs less than 10K a year.

[Restorium2]

In my experience, once the price of anything goes up, it never goes down again especially insurance.

 

Unless you can find a cheap Chinese knock-off at Walmart.

You missed the point Bill. This proposed law DOESN'T HELP. It would not lower medical malpractice insurance and fix the problem you brought up in your post. All it does is erode a jury's power. And we know all about that, right Bill? Heck, Kahn probably figures a jury of his peers isn't smart enough to do the right thing so he wants to limit what they can do. That's what it really boils down to.

[Dr. Bob]

The cost of malpractice has nothing to do with the cost of medical care, those are set by insurance companies.

 

Cel, your comments are really +/-. As presented, is your daughter's life worth 200K, it is a little misleading. My daughters can't be replaced by money. Any amount of money. But the question is what do the bills talk about. They don't talk about actual damages or care. You are correct in saying that the actual loss of your daughter (not including time lost from her potential career, the cost of her final medical and funeral expenses, the costs you incurred, etc- those are still covered) from an emotional aspect may be capped at 200-300K, but would a million make the emotional loss any easier to bear? Do you think that you are punishing the doctor? Even if you are, do you think destroying his family, his children, somehow makes things better?

 

The other aspect of malpractice folks don't think about, insurance companies pay it, not the doctor. That is what insurance is for. Just like car insurance. If I back into my garage, my premiums might go up, but my garage is fixed no matter how much it costs, even to the point of replacing the garage. You can't replace people, you can only try and fix them, replace their potential earnings, cover their expenses. You can't replace the loss. No amount of insurance coverage will cover that, and it is very difficult to even put an amount on it. It isn't an easy problem to address.

 

Dr. Bob

[Celliach]

I'm talking strictly about tort reform Bob. I'm against it, and what I said isn't misleading at all to me. If my daughter was killed by a negligent doctor, I'm going to want a hell of a lot more than $200,000. I still haven't seen a republican bill about malpractice yet that didn't try to limit payments.

[Dr. Bob]

Fair enough Cel. Your posts are well thought out in my opinion. There are two myths put out there. The first myth is by the attorneys saying tort reform limits freedom, hurts deserving patients, and is bad. The second is put out by doctors with claims that BS malpractice claims are taking the cost of medical care into the stratosphere and they are 'afraid' to take care of patients.

 

Here is the TRUTH, according to the all seeing, all knowing Dr. Bob (that is sarcasm for you concrete ideation types out there).

 

1. BS malpractice cases don't go to court. There is no money in them so the lawyers don't take them.

2. Real malpractice is generally settled out of court rather than go through years of litigation. Even questionable ones end up in this branch.

3. Most malpractice cases that go to court are weak and the patient/family is bent on punishment. They lose, the doctor wins. If there was a case, a settlement would have been offered.

4. Very, very few malpractice cases are of the type handled by Paul Neuman in the Verdict, where an actual malpractice action occured and no reasonable settlement was made. Those get more patient verdicts. Probably less than 1%.

 

The one and only malpractice case I ever was even peripherally involved with was a Baycol suit. Had it gone to court it would have EASILY resulted in a victory for the doctors, there was NO CASE. I was asked to review it and could have won it on my lunch break. BUT the pharmacutical company/insurance company offered a small settlement to avoid the cost of mediation. That is probably 90% of the awards patients get.

 

Dr. Bob

[Celliach]

I always have a particular case in mind when I think of tort reform, and it actually didn't even involve a doctor. It was the case John Edwards represented when the little girl had her guts sucked out through her anus from a pool pump because the pool didn't have a cover on the pump intake. If a representative from the pool company had offered me $200,000 if that had happened to my daughter, I'm not sure that I wouldn't have physically hurt him.

[Dr. Bob]

I always have a particular case in mind when I think of tort reform, and it actually didn't even involve a doctor. It was the case John Edwards represented when the little girl had her guts sucked out through her anus from a pool pump because the pool didn't have a cover on the pump intake. If a representative from the pool company had offered me $200,000 if that had happened to my daughter, I'm not sure that I wouldn't have physically hurt him.

 

I understand completely. And you are clearly right, BUT that isn't the whole story.

 

All medical expenses, future income, etc would have been covered. That is literally millions. After that is all done, and it is something that can be calculated and negotiated, the pain and suffering MIGHT have been capped at some figure, but really would only be a very small part of the final settlement given the horror of the case. But I would also think there would be some way of making an exception in an outlying case like that one.

[greenbuddha]

Let's face it... these bills weren't begun by the AMA, although medical doctors will very likely benefit from their passage (an injurred patient wouldn't be able to go after a physician's personal wealth for compensation, etc).

 

These bills were begun by THE INSURANCE companies with the support of the medical profession to help insurance companies keep from having pay out large sums of money.

 

And it is true, NO ONE'S insurance premiums are going to go down if these bills pass... NO ONE'S!

 

WHO actually benefits?

 

But physicians are going to like the 'bills' because they will feel better thinking their arses are covered somehow.

 

MTCW.

[Celliach]

I could probably be for some malpractice reform, if the Republicans would just stop tying tort reform to it.

[Dr. Bob]

Let's face it... these bills weren't begun by the AMA, although medical doctors will very likely benefit from their passage, an injurred patient wouldn't be able to go after a physician's personal wealth for compensation, etc.

 

These bills were begun by THE INSURANCE companies with the support of the medical profession to help insurance companies keep from having pay out large sums of money.

 

And it is true, NO ONE'S insurance premiums are going to go down if these bills pass... NO ONE'S!

 

WHO actually benefits?

 

But physicians are going to like the 'bills' because they will feel better thinking their arses are covered somehow.

 

MTCW.

 

And BINGO was his Name O.

 

BTW, those doctors with personal wealth are very good at making sure it stays personal. So again, really not that much of a factor.

[greenbuddha]

And BINGO was his Name O.

 

BTW, those doctors with personal wealth are very good at making sure it stays personal. So again, really not that much of a factor.

 

Oh... if these bills pass, it won't be the end of them.

 

This is just a 'foot in the door'.

 

And that... you can take to the bank!

[Dr. Bob]

Insurance companies suck... sorry, how I feel. I am so tired of having to justify a CT scan to some 19 year old 'coverage denied' person.

 

Dr. Bob