SC House takes away right to jury trial

The South Carolina House has passed another "tort reform" measure which is not necessary, most likely unconstitutional, and clearly arbitrary.  The Sun News had an article and it is very interesting what critics and proponents said.  The bill will place an arbitrary cap on how much a jury could award against reckless or intentional conduct.  The measure limits the amount juries could award to deter or punish a business for gross negligence. Punitive damages could be $350,000 or three times compensatory damages, whichever is greater.  The purpose of punitive damages is to deter or punish.

Opponents said multi-million-dollar lawsuit awards are extremely rare in South Carolina.  The executive director of the South Carolina trial lawyers' association said a review of verdicts from courts in the state's three largest counties - Richland, Charleston and Greenville - shows how extraordinary it is for a jury to award punitive amounts at all in this state. Of the 136 personal injury verdicts in those counties in 2007 and 2008, juries awarded punitive damages in seven of them, and only two of those involved more than $7,000, said Mike Hemlepp, executive director of South Carolina Association for Justice. He noted an amount seen as unfair could be decreased either by the trial judge or an appeal.


"Is there any evidence they're saying, 'We're not coming because of tort law?'" asked Rep. Bakari Sellers, D-Denmark. "Tort reform is something people want until it's their family member or friend who gets injured."

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Harrison, R-Columbia, acknowledged those numbers don't indicate a problem.

Rep. Doug Jennings, D-Bennettsville, argued punitive awards are meant to discourage companies and people from blatantly disregarding how their actions may injure others, but the limits mean they won't be discouraged from changing their ways.

Hemlepp said the measure is designed to squash cases from going to court. Civil lawsuits often involve clients who can't pay lawyer fees upfront, which means lawyers won't take frivolous cases. But since lawyers often get paid by taking one-third to 40 percent of the award, capping punitive damages means fewer cases will be taken.

The vote comes five years after the Legislature capped pain-and-suffering awards for medical malpractice lawsuits at $350,000.  Todd Atwater, CEO of the South Carolina Medical Association, said the rates of medical malpractice insurance are going down, as are the number of claims.

 

Tort Reform is a red herring

Call for Medical Liability Reform a Red Herring Proffered byOpponents of Meaningful Health Care Reform.  Crisis Does Exist, But it Is in Patient Safety, Not Malpractice Litigation.

With President Barack Obama's health care summit pending, a lot of politically expedient misinformation about medical liability reform is being spread. Public Citizen issued a new report this week to correct the record and highlight the five key points in the malpractice crisis that have largely been ignored:

 

1. Medical malpractice payments have fallen steadily for years and are now at or near historic lows;

 

2. Although an experiment in Texas has been promoted as proof of the potential benefits of so-called "tort reform," health care cost increases in that state have far outpaced the national average since it instituted strict liability limits in 2003. Meanwhile, its worst-in-the-nation uninsured rate has gotten even worse;

 

3. Most of the money paid out for medical malpractice is for serious outcomes, such as death or quadriplegia. Tort reform proponents call for damage caps that would affect the ability of seriously injured people to obtain reasonable compensation; the caps would not reduce the incidence of alleged "junk lawsuits";

 

4. A serious patient safety crisis does exist; and

 

5. Addressing senseless medical errors would save several times as much money as the combined costs of the medical malpractice litigation system, including those for verdicts and settlements, defense litigation, and liability insurance companies' profits and overhead.

 

Medical malpractice litigation has fallen steadily throughout most of the past decade and is now at or near the lowest level on record, analysis of the federal National Practitioner Data Bank shows.

 

The real crisis surrounding medical malpractice is not the cost of litigation but rather the amount of malpractice. Only about 11,000 malpractice payments are made on behalf of doctors every year. The true inequity in the malpractice system is that so few victims receive any compensation at all. But even if injured patients were to receive compensation for their medical needs, that still would fail to address the tragedies inflicted by medical malpractice.

 

As policymakers become aware of the truth - that medical malpractice litigation is quite rare and represents only a tiny fraction of overall health care cost - the outspoken tort reformers have turned to a new argument. Now they claim that it is not litigation, but the fear of litigation, driving skyrocketing health care costs, with doctors ordering excessive tests and procedures (so-called "defensive medicine"). In reality, the cost of the entire medical liability system - including payments, litigation costs and insurance company profits and overhead - amounts to less than six-tenths of 1 percent of national health care expenditures, according to Public Citizen's analysis.

 

For more information, Public Citizen's report assessing national medical malpractice data is available at http://www.citizen.org/documents/NPDB_Report_200907.pdf. Public Citizen's report analyzing Texas' 2003 liability law is available at http://www.citizen.org/documents/Texas_Liability_Limits.pdf.

 

 

Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C.

 

For more information, please visit www.citizen.org. Contact: Taylor Lincoln (202) 454-5197, Barbara Holzer (202) 588-7716
 

Tort Reform

See article from CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen in The Atlantic, where he calls tort reform, "one of the most blatantly anti-democrat concepts to have hit the legal system in the past century."

If President Barack Obama has to hand his adversaries a bauble in order to achieve success with health care reform, it might as well be the misnomer commonly known as "tort reform." The ends of providing insurance for millions of uninsured Americans, never mind whatever good it might do for the rest of us, is worth the means of giving Corporate America yet another legally-sanctified level of protection against the wailing interests of its customers, consumers, patients, and just plain innocent bystanders.

But let's not kid each other any longer. As we brace ourselves for yet another round of wrangling over the tail and not the dog, let's all stipulate that "tort reform" is one of the most blatantly anti-democrat concepts to have hit the legal system in the past century. It takes control over damage awards in many civil cases away from local judges and juries and gives them to state politicians, who often are just shills for their corporate campaign contributors and lobbyists. It protects corporations from punishment for their worst excesses. It diminishes good incentives for corporate carefulness and increases bad incentives for shoddy work and services.

"Tort reform is little more than a scam by an unpopular minority (corporations) against an enormous majority (anyone who is eligible to serve on a jury or who ever already has)." Wouldn't it be great if the President forced those words out of the mouth of the Chamber of Commerce president in exchange for even friendlier litigation rules for Big Business as it confronts changes to our national approach to health care?

 

I don't use the word "scam" lightly above. Supporters of tort reform, invariably corporatists and others who believe in this self-defeating supply-side notion of justice, have scammed or otherwise brainwashed millions of Americans into thinking that tort reform will save them from despicable "trial lawyers," a convenient target group in this ever-litigious world. But no 'trial attorney" ever went into the jury room and voted for a large verdict against a greedy corporation which purposely hid health risks from its customers. No "trial judge" ever put a gun to a foreperson's head and made that man or woman sign off on a big reward against an environmental polluter or tobacco company or maker of unsafe toys.

Instead, these verdicts came from jurors, one of the justice system's--one of all of governments'--few remaining unassailable cogs. Each time a jury awards a large sum to a plaintiff against a negligent defendant, it's a statement from jurors that the sort of conduct alleged and proven is worthy of punishment by the community. Sometimes, this is the only time in the lives of these people, these jurors, when they will have such an extraordinary say about the events of their time and place. Sometimes they are right. Sometimes they are wrong. But at least in these circumstances they make a difference based solely upon the fact that they are residents of a particular venue.

Make no mistake--the "reform" in "tort reform" is about eliminating or reducing the ability of trial juries to act as levelers of the playing field; as avengers of otherwise toothless victims; as the voice of a community in meting out justice. It is about helping corporations before individuals; about the bottom line and not the bottom rung. Alas, many of the same folks who tout individualism and freedom and liberty against government control evidently have no qualms about using support for tort reform as their ticket to worship at the Altar of corporate control.

The reason the topic is again in the headlines is because opponents of health care reform evidently don't have anything better to argue about in their efforts to stop passage of the pending legislation. Fine. The President and his fellow Democrats should concede on tort reform. And at the same time, he should figure out a way to track whether reductions in jury awards, and concomitant decreases in the costs of malpractice insurance, reduce the ultimate cost to consumers of health care and at the same time generate better quality of service.

Of course, we all know what the answers to those questions will be. Which now that I think about it is another thing we ought to be honest about.
 

Illinois Damage Cap Ruled Unconstitutional

The Illinois Supreme Court struck down the state's medical malpractice law today, saying it violates separation of powers by allowing lawmakers to interfere with a judge's ability to reduce verdicts.  The decision shows why judges and juries, not legislators, should decide merits of individual cases.  Illinois’ cap on malpractice damages was today ruled unconstitutional, illustrating why federal efforts to place arbitrary limits on the amount injured patients receive won’t fix America’s broken health care system.  The Illinois Supreme Court held that the legislature violated separation of powers by enacting the damage cap, thus intruding on the authority of judges to assure that jury verdicts conform to the evidence. The ruling was the third time since 1976 that the Illinois court had found a damage cap unconstitutional. 

"This decision is a victory for the families of patients who are killed or seriously injured by preventable medical errors,” said American Association for Justice President Anthony Tarricone. “For years, groups on the federal and state level have used scare tactics to restrict the rights of injured patients. But the facts show time and again that caps or similar one-sided measures do nothing to lower costs, cover the uninsured, or improve access to care. As the health care reform debate continues, the ruling in Illinois shows that judges and juries - not legislators - should decide the merits of each case and appropriate compensation for injured patients.” 

The plaintiff in this case, Abigaile Lebron, was born horribly impaired in October 2005, after the doctors failed to perform routine and necessary tests to treat her troubled pregnancy, which indicated a need for immediate delivery.  When she was finally delivered by Cesarean sections, Abigaile had suffered severe brain injury, cerebral palsy, cognitive mental impairment, and inability to develop normal neurological function.  Under the 2005 statute, any jury verdict in Abigaile’s favor would be capped at $500,000 against physicians found liable and $1 million against the hospital, if held liable.

 

Continue Reading...

Jay Reinan v. Mariner

Below is a great old article about attorney Jay Reinan from Colorado who fought on behalf of John Gordy against the infamous Mariner chain.  Reinan had been a nursing home defense lawyer until he saw the light.   Here is the full article. 

John Gordy's story is tragic and typical of many residents in nursing homes.   He was neglected and abused by those he entrusted with his safety and care.   In 2002 he was admitted to the Red Rocks facility.  Right away, things started going wrong. Though Red Rocks' advertising promised excellence in wound care, Gordy felt like he had to train every new aide who walked into his room. And because of constant turnover, there were many. An ulcer on his foot was ignored to the point of needing surgery. Twice. He almost died after being given the wrong antibiotic. He was forced to lie helpless, despite his protests, as a hot towel scalded the flesh of his chest, leaving him with second-degree burns -- an attempt to warm him when the heat at the facility was broken. But nothing was as bad as the nighttime. Gordy's call light was his only defense in an emergency, but it took aides hours to answer. One night he was left near the side of his bed, with the bed rail down. As he felt himself sliding toward the edge, he yelled out for help, knowing it would only be a matter of time before he fell. He screamed all night, but no one came. At the 6 a.m. shift change, someone finally checked on him; just as the aide entered the room, Gordy crashed off the bed and landed on his face, smashing his teeth.

Jerome "Jay" Reinan is a Denver lawyer who spends his days fighting for abused and neglected clients such as John Gordy, wasn't always on the side of right.  He used to work for what he calls "the dark side," defending corporate nursing homes against such claims. "I was probably one of the primary nursing-home defense lawyers in the state before I switched over," he says matter-of-factly. 

Despite courtroom successes, there were early signs that defense work didn't suit Reinan. He didn't like not being able to choose cases, and he hated that clients were billed on an hourly basis. "You have to keep track of every minute," he says. "If I was on a phone call with a client, I would have to have a piece of paper or a computer program where I kept track of every second I was talking to that person, and it drove me nuts."

It wasn't until 1996 that Reinan took the case that would end his career in nursing-home defense. It started with the families of four residents of Cedars Health Care Center in Lakewood but would grow to include everyone who had lived there between 1993 and 1998, nearly 200 people. During the course of the litigation, the nursing home's owner went through a series of mergers to create Mariner Post-Acute Network. The sheer size of the case was overwhelming, and it absorbed almost all of Reinan's efforts as well as that of one of his partners and two associates. But in the midst of the massive undertaking, Mariner stopped paying its legal bills -- $250,000 worth. (The company would file for bankruptcy in 2000 and emerge as Mariner Health Care Inc. in 2002.) "The mentality you get into on the defense side is, if you have one big client, you're going to kiss that client's butt," Reinan says. "Even if they're not paying the bills on time or they're cutting your bills back, you just have to take it."

But Reinan didn't want to take it anymore. He knew if he was ever going to switch sides and represent people injured by nursing homes, the time was right.  Reinan fired Mariner and demanded payment for what he was owed. His partners protested, but he told them it was his client, his decision. Mariner eventually paid, but the partners split, and Reinan started his own practice in October 1999.

Jay Reinan accepted a case against Red Rocks Healthcare Center for allowing resident Chris Tisserat to starve and dehydrate. But when he filed suit, he got an interesting call from Mariner Health Care Inc., Red Rocks' owner and the company he once represented. "I get a call from their national counsel saying Mariner's almost going bankrupt. They're running out of money and can't pay very much for this claim. 'You'd better take what I'm offering today because it may not be here tomorrow.'"

So he did. Reinan knew if he held out for more and the company filed for bankruptcy protection, his client might end up with nothing. His mistake in taking the bait didn't occur to him until months later.

In summer 2005, John Gordy's case against Red Rocks was referred to Reinan. It was exactly the type of case that Reinan prefers to take. Not only could he show what horrors Gordy had suffered, but records from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment showed a pattern of substandard care. Between 2002 and 2005, Red Rocks had been cited with seven deficiencies for failure to prevent or treat pressure sores, five deficiencies for failure to adequately maintain clinical records on residents, and four for failure to prevent falls. Across the state, nearly all of Mariner's thirty nursing homes were cited with serious deficiencies. Eleven were cited for pressure sores at a time when the company was promising superior wound prevention. In fact, the company had such a bad record that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services had previously sued it for fraud because Mariner facilities hadn't provided the minimum standard of care required by Medicare and Medicaid.

In early 2002, Mariner paid $26 million in fines and entered a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of the Inspector General. A 47-page document specifies every care and accountability standard that Mariner facilities must meet if the company wants to keep its Medicare and Medicaid checks coming.

As Reinan prepared to file Gordy's case, he thought about his last settlement with Mariner. He assumed the company had managed to avoid bankruptcy, as he hadn't heard any more talk of an impending filing. He ran a simple Internet search in late 2005 to check the company's status and found that Mariner hadn't been paying creditors or even its own attorneys: Gulf South Medical Supply was suing Mariner for nearly $5 million it was owed for supplies, and Brunini, Grantham, Grower and Hewes PLLC, a defense firm in Mississippi that represented Mariner, was suing the company for nearly $1 million owed in legal bills. Reinan was glad he had fired Mariner as a client when they owed him only $250,000.

He also found that a group of real-estate investors had formed a company called National Senior Care Inc. in order to purchase the publicly traded Mariner Health Care Inc. The $1 billion deal that went through in December 2004 was a leveraged buyout, as NSC sold off much of Mariner's real-estate assets -- 180 facilities -- to finance the sale. Interestingly, the owners of the companies who bought the assets have ties to NSC, including Leonard Grunstein whose brother is NSC president Harry Grunstein. That sale left the now-privately owned Mariner -- which continued to operate under its own name -- a shell of its former self, worth only $5 million to $12 million, compared to its earlier billion-dollar valuation. Separating the real-estate holdings from the actual health-care operation had an upside for the company's new owners: It reduced their exposure to liability lawsuits, because such cases can only be filed against the company holding the license to provide care, and Mariner's post-sale bottom line looked too emaciated to afford big payouts.

When Reinan took a closer look at the ownership of Red Rocks Healthcare Center, he found a tangled web of companies. But as he traced back the licensure documents, he noticed that the same names kept reappearing: real-estate moguls Harry and Leonard Grunstein and Rubin and Avi Schron. "The land is owned by a company owned by these four guys, and the building is owned by another company owned by these four guys, and the staff is managed by a company that is owned by these four guys. Then there's layers of companies that lease the staff and the building to other companies owned by these four guys, and pretty soon you have something like literally ten or twelve companies that all have their little fingers in running Red Rocks Healthcare Center," he says.

"Why do they do that? It allows them to own all the assets that used to be Mariner, but at the same time avoid liability to the people they hurt, maim and kill at their facilities."

Reinan amended the complaint in the Gordy suit, adding all the specific companies involved and their individual owners. He also included that long list of defendants in a new lawsuit on behalf of Peggy Mussehl, whom he claimed was neglected at another Mariner facility, Fort Collins Health Care Center.  Reinan got a call from Mariner's local attorney, a former colleague, assuring him that adding the additional companies and individuals as defendants would only complicate and drag out the case. It wasn't necessary, he explained, because Mariner had liability insurance.

Reinan agreed to dismiss the extra parties from the complaint, with a warning: "If I hear a whiff of evidence from anyone that Mariner doesn't have money, Mariner doesn't have insurance, I'm going to refile this thing pronto."

A month later, in March, Reinan got a letter in the mail from Martin Stein in New York, the same man who had urged him to settle the Tisserat suit: There are currently approximately 300 open claims against the Mariner entities, alleging injury and/or loss. These include many high exposure cases which are scheduled for trial over the next few months. With respect to almost all of these cases, including the above-captioned matter, there is no insurance available for the first $1 million of loss (including fees and expenses). This means that any judgment in such cases up to $1 million (less fees and expenses incurred) will have to be satisfied from the Mariner assets, if any, available at the time of judgment.

Under the circumstances, I hereby offer $35,000 to settle the [John Gordy] case on behalf of Mariner and its related entities.Š Finally, please be advised that on February 8 and 9, 2005, Mariner won three defense verdicts in professional liability cases, two in Florida and one in Texas.

Two days later, Reinan received the same form letter regarding the Mussehl case. As part of Colorado's tort reform in 1986, nursing homes and other medical facilities were required to obtain insurance as a trade-off for caps being set on awards. Colorado law now requires each nursing home to have at least $3 million in insurance, so Reinan requested the licensure information from the state health department. In the affidavits, signed in 2005, company officials had sworn that each facility had the necessary insurance.

Stein maintains that he has "never said that Mariner does not have insurance" and has "never sent a letter to any attorney on behalf of Mariner saying that Mariner doesn't have any insurance." When asked to clarify the content of the letter, he refused and hung up the phone. Attempts to contact Mariner's in-house counsel and Leonard Grunstein, who is named individually in Reinan's complaints, were unsuccessful. 

Reinan suspects that the new owners are hoping trial lawyers will shy away from claims against Mariner once they find that there's no money and no insurance. Most attorneys would rather take cases against financially sound companies with whom they can settle quickly. In April, Reinan again amended his complaints against Mariner to add the individual owners and associated companies, then filed a new suit in federal court.

Reinan also sent letters to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies Division of Insurance and the U.S. Office of the Inspector General detailing what he knew about Mariner's insurance situation and including copies of his letters from Stein and the affidavits submitted to the state health department. "Obviously, one of two things has happened," he wrote. "Either Mariner is employing fraudulent insurance-claims tactics by pretending it has no money in order [to] save on claims payments, or Mariner truly has no money and no insurance, and the affidavits issued by [company officials] are phony and fraudulent. In either case, the State of Colorado must investigate this matter."

 



 

Malpractice Myths Debunked

The following is a press release from the AAJ.  New Paper Debunks Malpractice Myths 

As enemies of health care reform spread lies and mistruths about medical negligence, a new white paper tackles the issue head-on, debunking the most common myths with sound science and research while refuting the hyperbole and empty rhetoric.

 Five Myths About Medical Negligence, one in a series of reports from the American Association for Justice on this issue, examines the errors and faults behind the most commonly used talking points of health care reform opponents. 

Myth #1: There are too many “frivolous” malpractice lawsuits.
Fact: There’s an epidemic of medical negligence, not lawsuits. Only one in eight people injured by medical negligence ever file suit. Civil filings have declined eight percent over the last decade, and are less than one percent of the whole civil docket.  A 2006 Harvard study found that 97 percent of claims were meritorious, stating, “portraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown.”

Myth #2: Malpractice claims drive up health care costs.
Fact:  According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the total spent defending claims and compensating victims of medical negligence was just 0.3% of health care costs, and the Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office have made similar findings.

Myth #3: Doctors are fleeing.
Fact:  Then where are they going? According to the American Medical Association’s own data, the number of practicing physicians in the United States has been growing steadily for decades. Not only are there more doctors, but the number of doctors is increasing faster than population growth. Despite the cries of physicians fleeing multiple states, the number of physicians increased in every state, and only four states saw growth slower than population growth; these four states all have medical malpractice caps.

Myth #4: Malpractice claims drive up doctors’ premiums.
Fact: Empirical research has found that there is little correlation between malpractice payouts and malpractice premiums paid by doctors. A study of the leading medical malpractice insurance companies’ financial statements by former Missouri Insurance Commissioner Jay Angoff found that these insurers artificially raised doctors’ premiums and misled the public about the nature of medical negligence claims. A previous AAJ report on malpractice insurers found they had earnings higher than 99% of Fortune 500 companies.

Myth #5: Tort reform will lower insurance rates.
Fact: Tort reforms are passed under the guise that they will lower physicians’ liability premiums. This does not happen. While insurers do pay out less money when damages awards are capped, they do not pass the savings along to doctors by lowering premiums. Even the most ardent tort reformers have been caught stating that tort reform will have no effect on insurance rates. 

“All the facts and evidence show that tort law changes will do practically nothing to lower costs or cover the uninsured,” said AAJ President Anthony Tarricone. “It’s no wonder the tort reformers, insurance lobby, and other corporate front groups have to gin up lies and phony stats, since no legitimate data or research supports their claims. Our focus should be on reducing the 98,000 deaths by medical error that occurs every year, not limiting patients’ legal rights.” 

As part of its ongoing series on the topic, AAJ earlier released Medical Negligence: A Primer for the Nation’s Health Care Debate, The Truth About “Defensive Medicine,” and The Insurance Hoax: How Doctors and Patients Pay for the Huge Earnings of Medical Malpractice Insurers. These can be located at here.  Five Myths About Medical Negligence can be found here.   

 

Nursing Home Industry Profits doing well.

Five Star Quality Care 3rd Qtr Results here and press release here.   Total revenues increased 5.9% to $297.2 million; net income $4.1 million.  Five Star Quality Care, Inc. is a senior living and healthcare services company.  Five Star owns or leases and operates 206 senior living communities with 21,953 living units located in 30 states. These communities include independent living, assisted living and skilled nursing communities. Five Star also operates five institutional pharmacies and two rehabilitation hospitals.  Five Star is headquartered in Newton, Massachusetts.

Kindred Posts Higher-Than-Expected Profits in 3rd Qtr.  See report here and press release here.  Net income was $5.5 million.  Revenue for the July-to-September period rose 6 percent to $1.06 billion.   The Louisville long-term care company recorded revenue growth in each of its three divisions — hospitals, nursing homes and rehabilitation. But the key was a 21 percent gain in hospital operating income.  Privately insured patients are generally more profitable than those covered by the government’s Medicare and Medicaid programs.   The company plans to keep growing.   Kindred expects to spend $45 million to $50 million to develop hospitals next year and $25 million to $30 million to grow its nursing-home business.

Ensign 3rd Qtr. Revenue Up Record 14.3%.  See report here and press release here.   The Ensign Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: ENSG), the parent company of the Ensign(TM) group of skilled nursing,
rehabilitative care services, hospice care and assisted living companies, today reported record results for the third quarter of fiscal year 2009.  Total revenue was a record $132.9 million, up 14.3% compared to $116.3 million for the third quarter of 2008.

Extendicare REIT 3rd Qtr. Results--Increased Profitability.  See report here.  Revenue of $532.1 million in Q3 2009, an increase of 8.5% compared to $490.2 million in Q3 2008, due largely to achieving higher per diem rates in Medicare and Managed Care. EBITDA of $71.1 million in Q3 2009, an increase of 39.2% compared to $51.1 million in Q3 2008, mainly due to cost controls.  EBITDA margins improved to 13.4% in Q3 2009 from 10.4% in Q3 2008 and 13.1% during Q2 2009.  Cash on hand of $130.9 million with no significant debt maturities until 2011 and beyond.

 

Medical Industry maintains status as highest paid jobs

I have seen two lists that discuss the highest paid jobs.  One list is based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the other is from Forbes Magazine.  Both are dominated by health care professionals and show that there is clearly no need for tort reform.


1. Anesthesiologists: $197,340. (And anesthesiologists make more money in the state of Washington than in any other U.S. state)

2. Surgeons: $206,150. (Highest-paying state: Wyoming.)

3. Obstetricians and gynecologists: $192,040. (Highest-paying state: New Hampshire.)

4. Orthodontists: $194,900. (Highest-paying state: Wisconsin).

5. Oral Surgeons: $190,760. (Again, the highest-paying state is Wisconsin.)

6. Internists: $176,860. (Highest-paying state: Louisiana.)

7. Prosthodontists: $169,940. (Highest-paying state: Virginia)

8. Psychiatrists: $154,990. (Highest-paying state: Idaho.)

9. General Practitioners: $161,850. (Highest-paying state: Kansas.)

10. Chief Executive Officers: $144,600. (Highest-paying state: New Jersey.)

11. Dentists: $154,950. (Highest-paying state: Maine)

12. Physicians/Surgeons: $169,220. (Highest-paying state: Utah.)

13. General Pediatricians: $153,440. (Highest-paying state: Louisiana.)

14. Pilots/Co-pilots/Flight Engineers: $140,380. (Highest-paying state: Illinois.)

15. Podiatrists: $125,500. (Highest-paying state: Oregon.)

Tort Reform does not save lives or reduce costs

Dr. Rahulk Parikh wrote an interesting and surprising article ("The doctors' lobby says capping malpractice suits will make healthcare cheaper. I'm an M.D. and I don't believe it") recently about malpractice reform.  Dr. Parikh makes some great points based on his own experiences including the concept of "defensive medicine".

He writes: "The H1N1 strain of influenza is no more lethal than any other strain of flu. Mortality is less than 1 percent.  Nevertheless, by over-prescribing an expensive drug that has only marginal benefits, I'm unequivocally practicing what is known as defensive medicine. As in, the kind of medicine that protects doctors as much as patients."

 

"I'm afraid that if I don't do something, one of my patients may get sick or die, and I'll end up in court being asked why I didn't do everything I could have. Defensive medicine is just one of the supposed systemic ills that doctors, doctors' lobbies and doctors' insurers invoke when they shill for what they call malpractice reform.  Proponents of reform say that defensive medicine, frivolous lawsuits and high premiums are behind the surge in healthcare expenses. They insist that malpractice costs are forcing doctors to close their doors and depriving patients of care. Recently, three past presidents of the American Medical Association coauthored an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal that bundled all of these arguments into an attack on the public option. Their piece attempted to shift the blame for America's healthcare crisis away from private insurers and onto a supposed scourge of ambulance chasers. "The nation needs comprehensive medical malpractice reform," they wrote. "It is the surest and quickest way to slow down the rising cost of healthcare.""

 

Their refrain is familiar to anybody following the healthcare reform debate. The only problem is that it's not true. There's nothing "sure or quick" about changing medical liability laws that will improve healthcare or its costs. Defensive medicine adds very little to healthcare's price tag, and rising malpractice premiums have had very little impact on access to care.

 

Let's look at the numbers. First, based on the current rhetoric, it's easy to assume we have an epidemic of malpractice suits in America. We don't.

 

There are many statistics out there, and it's not always possible to make an apples to apples comparison between one study and another. Some surveys cover the nation, some cover one group of states, some cover another cluster, and results vary. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, nationally, between the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, the frequency of malpractice suits per capita remained stable at about 15 claims per 100 physicians per year. Another report, from the National Center for State Courts, actually shows that the number of cases between 1996 and 2006 dropped 8 percent.

 

Although the payout per claim has increased, the Justice Department, in a 2007 report about medical malpractice -- in fact, the same report cited by the authors of the Wall Street Journal piece mentioned above -- provided an explanation quite different from an epidemic of lawsuits. "Growing healthcare costs and an increasing effort by many attorneys to litigate only those medical malpractice claims involving severe injuries or wrongful death claims may explain some of these increases," they wrote.  Still, even with the rise in payouts, the Congressional Budget Office, using statistics from the government's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, estimates that malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of healthcare spending. Saving 2 percent of the over $2 trillion we spend on healthcare isn’t going to bend the cost curve.

 

Next is the question of frivolous lawsuits. Tort reformers push the notion that junk lawsuits dominate the legal system.   But the private studies cited often involve small numbers of claims, or focus on a single hospital, insurer, specialty or type of injury, or were commissioned by interested parties, aka the malpractice insurers themselves. The 2007 Department of Justice study cited by the Journal trio covers only seven states.  Regarding the percentages of cases doctors win, a 2001 analysis by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, examining malpractice trends in the 75 most populous counties in the U.S., put that number closer to 70 percent.

 

In 2006, researchers from Harvard published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that was designed to avoid the limits, and the biases, of prior research. What they found kills the notion of frivolous lawsuits. It suggests that most people who sue are suing for good reason.

 

The researchers reviewed nearly 1,500 claims from five different malpractice insurers. First, they reviewed the merits of each case by determining whether a patient was injured and, if so, whether it was due to physician error. Most of the suits were not frivolous: Almost two-thirds of cases involved errors by doctors. Second, they followed each claim to see if the legal system acted appropriately. The majority of the time, it did. Seventy-three percent of injuries in which a doctor committed an error resulted in payments. Seventy-two percent of cases in which there was an injury not due to physician error did not result in payment. Those conclusions do not paint the picture of a medical-legal system burdened by ambulance-chasing lawyers and their litigious clients.

 

Instead of a swamp of frivolous lawsuits, what the data shows is a system that functions. Insubstantial claims tend to collapse, while the medical industry usually opts to pay off injured patients instead of going to trial. The doctors and the insurers choose to fight to win when they think they can, and when there is enough money at stake, and usually do win.

 

There are two more arguments tort reformers use to make their case for change: The first is that defensive medicine drives up the cost of care. The second is that skyrocketing malpractice premiums are driving doctors out of business, cutting patients' access to care. In both cases, however, the facts don't substantiate those claims.

 

 

Yet more recent analyses show that the effect of defensive medicine on overall costs is, at best, marginal. The most visible of them came from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. In a 2004 report, it reviewed studies suggesting tort reform did reduce healthcare costs, including the Kessler and McClellan study. However, when the CBO applied the methods used in that study to a broader set of ailments, it found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduced medical spending. It also found no difference in per capita healthcare spending between states with and without limits on malpractice awards. More recently, the Kessler-McClellan study received another blow when two new authors reassessed their original work. Unlike the original study, this one looked at the effects of tort reforms over a longer time period. Just like the CBO review, it concluded that "Direct reforms (caps on damages, abolition of punitive damages, eliminating mandatory prejudgment interest, and collateral source offset) did not significantly reduce payments for Medicare-covered services."

 

In that same 2004 report, the CBO also took a hard look at the claim that rising malpractice premiums were driving doctors out of business and thus cutting access to care. While the report did find instances of reduced access to emergency surgery and newborn delivery, albeit in scattered, often rural, areas, it also found that many reported shortages of healthcare providers could not be substantiated or did not widely affect access to healthcare. Traditionally, rural areas are where healthcare is scarce anyway. According to the Council of Graduate Medical Education, "the relative shortage of health professionals in rural areas of the United States is one of the few constants in any description of the United States medical care system." So with or without tort reform, access to care is likely to stay tight outside of big cities.

 

It would seem that after all of this, what we’re left with is a crisis not of the medical-legal system, but of the economics of malpractice insurance, as doctors have seen their premiums skyrocket in recent years. But even that can’t be pinned strictly on the risk of insuring physicians. Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, notes "that a historical pattern has been established that insurance rates rise also based on the investment market ... Earlier 'crises' (in 1975–6 and 1985–6) similar to today’s 'crisis' were due to declining investment fortunes and failed pricing practices of the insurance industry rather than an increase in medical malpractice filings and awards. Then, as now, the insurance industry covered its losses by raising rates dramatically, then blamed the lawyers of innocent patients rightfully seeking compensation for negligence-related injuries."

 

 

Tort reformers neglect the fact that malpractice reform won't save one extra life. To make that difference, insurers, doctors and their lobbyists like the AMA need to find ways to improve patient safety. So for those who push tort reform as a panacea for a sick healthcare system, working to prevent injuries is a much more noble pursuit than writing up baseless arguments for the back pages of a newspaper.

 

Insurance companies profits explode

The American Association for Justice released an astounding statistic: medical malpractice insurance companies’ average profits are higher than those of 99 percent of Fortune 500 companies.

As the nation remains mired in a debate over health care reform and how to keep down the costs of expanding coverage, AAJ is trying to point out that Republicans claims that medical malpractice lawsuits are one of the big cost drivers is completely misleading. In fact, though malpractice claims and so-called “defensive medicine” does account for a small percentage of unnecessary costs, medical errors and the astronomical profits of malpractice insurers appear to be a bigger part of the problem.

AAJ’s report released today finds that the average profit of medical malpractice insurance companies is higher than 99 percent of all Fortune 500 companies and 35 times higher than the Fortune 500 average for the same time period; and malpractice insurers have seen their profit margins range from 5.9 percent to 74.8 percent, with an average of 31.2 percent.  The report also finds that malpractice insurers have publicly overestimated their losses and underestimated their profits in an attempt to suggest the insurance business and medical practice in general faces a crisis that must be resolved by so-called “tort reform” — i.e., making it harder for patients to sue and to collect damages for their injuries.

“Insurance companies are gouging doctors on their premiums to mislead lawmakers,” said American Association for Justice President Anthony Tarricone, managing partner at Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, in a statement released with the report. “And today, injured patients are often left with no avenue to pursue justice, while health care costs continue to skyrocket.”

 

Poliakoff & Associates, P.A., is one of South Carolina’s most respected and distinguished law firms. The Poliakoff firm began nearlyMore...