TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-24-09 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. I'm not one either (now), but I used to handle them.
Edited on Fri Jul-24-09 04:42 PM by TexasObserver
I did insurance defense for E&O for many years, defending doctors, hospitals, lawyers, accountants, engineers, and architects for malpractice claims. Defending med mal claims is by far the easiest of the E&O cases, because (1) their culture is one of hiding or fabricating evidence (much like police covering for each other), so things that should have been written down are not written down, and witnesses tend to cover for each other, (2) they often make their decisions in a moment, when they don't have time to think about other options, (3) of all those sued for malpractice, none takes it harder than a doctor and none thinks they are more entitled to vindication than a doctor, and (4) there are provisions to protect doctors that other professionals do not have.
I did it for about ten years, and found that the reason doctors get sued for malpractice is because doctors commit malpractice. On the plaintiff's side of the docket, I'd rather try any kind of case over a med mal. It's easier to get to the jury, and it's easier to win the jury. Some jurors think doctors are gods who cannot be questioned. The same jurors wouldn't think twice about hanging an attorney for malpractice.
No group complains more about being sued but has more protections under the law than doctors.
I would prefer a claims system that is much more streamlined, that doesn't require every plaintiff to get some high powered med mal attorney to get paid when they are the subject of med malpractice. There's a military man who recently lost both legs while under for gall bladder surgery because a resident nicked an artery in surgery, cutting off circulation to the legs. He woke up missing both legs after routine surgery for something else. He will not be recompensed for it as he should be. The law protects the surgeon who screwed up.
Truthfully, the whole med mal area is sickening, because on the defense side it is one chickenshit advantage after another, and on the plaintiff's side it is about getting cases with huge damages and exposure to liability by entities not protected by liability limits.