Asked why they believe most malpractice lawsuits occur, 76% of neurologists indicated that patients simply don't understand medical risks and blame the doctor for bad outcomes, even if the doctor does everything right.
A little more than a quarter (26%) felt that constant advertising by lawyers to get new clients is the reason most malpractice lawsuits occur; 12% said it was because patients think they can make easy money.
The overwhelming majority of neurologists surveyed (94%) carry malpractice insurance.
Written by
pdpatient
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
I believe fear of malpractice claims is a big reason they so conservatively adhere to a narrow standard of care. A therapy has to be proven safe and effective (which takes considerable time and money) or they won't prescribe or encourage it. Unfortunately, most of us don't have the luxury of time and many potential therapies don't provide enough financial incentives for thorough, double blind studies. So neurologists stick to the script while we impatiently look for alternatives.
Doctors' opinions about why they get sued are not the same as the actual reasons they get sued. Doctors get sued as result of horrendous outcomes that could have been easily prevented, such as permanent impairment or death as result of failing to diagnose B12 deficiency. If a doctor is blameless no attorney will take a case merely because of a bad outcome, for the good reason that any lawsuit based on such facts will fail.
I’m afraid the current high profile case in the US gives me no confidence in the American judicial system. It seems the loudest most strident voice wins, its not about truth or honesty. Its all a game.
You refer only to the extreme cases, which are the ones that make the news. There are many frivolous lawsuits that have caused the cost of malpractice insurance to skyrocket which has driven many practitioners out business. People in the US are particularly litigious, often expecting a perfect outcome regardless of the odds or warnings they are given. I'm not saying that mistakes are not made and that some doctors need to have their licenses revoked (and maybe be jailed). You overestimate the honesty of malpractice attorneys (not all) who will sue knowing that insurance companies often choose to settle rather than go to court REGARDLESS of right or wrong. The same applies to hospitals. It is often cheaper to settle and the risk management departments call the shots.
This is what keeps attorneys from pursuing frivolous claims:
globegazette.com/news/local... McGuire, who has handled medical malpractice claims for 30 years, said a patient has a case if it can be shown that a doctor has not followed the accepted standard of care and something disastrous occurred as a result. He estimated only about one in 10 of the malpractice lawsuits that come into his office will make a strong enough case to pursue.“These cases are very expensive,” McGuire said. “You have to have doctors, often several, to testify for you.” He estimated the average expense to conduct a medical malpractice case is $50,000. Because many clients will be unable to afford it, the attorney usually has to advance the money to conduct the case."
" “Portraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown,” said David Studdert, who led a team of researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health in examining 1,452 randomly selected U.S. lawsuits."
In citing this study (“Claims, Errors, and Compensation Payments in Medical Malpractice Litigation“) as evidence, it’s clear those who use it to promote the idea of abundant “frivolous” lawsuits didn’t actually read it. Or, if they did, they chose to ignore that authors’ conclusion that “portraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown.”...
"The profile of non-error claims we observed does not square with the notion of opportunistic trial lawyers pursuing questionable lawsuits in circumstances in which their chances of winning are reasonable and prospective returns in the event of a win are high. Rather, our findings underscore how difficult it may be for plaintiffs and their attorneys to discern what has happened before the initiation of a claim and the acquisition of knowledge that comes from the investigations, consultation with experts, and sharing of information that litigation triggers. "
In other words, plaintiffs often need to file a claim just to get the information necessary to determine whether to proceed. And often once that information is revealed plaintiffs realize they don’t have a legitimate claim…and don’t proceed with the lawsuit. Those cases are included in the 40 percent of claims that were determined to be “without merit.”
I agree completely that there are very few frivolous medical malpractice claims. Unfortunately, as Park_bear also points out, the threat of malpractice claims causes doctors to adhere strictly to the prevailing "standard of care" for any particular disease. Unfortunately for PD patients, this inhibits innovation and creativity.
I understand that the vast majority of cases of any kind, including medical malpractice claims, are settled out of court. My point is that the threat of claims creates a climate for neurologists which stifles innovation and creativity. I think we are on the same page. 😊
We are so fortunate. Our MD, in this small community, is committed to taking many, many classes a year, and learns and practices medicine that is, for the most part, not considered 'standard of care'. We teach him; he teaches us!
So not as many as I thought, but the cost of malpractice insurance is extremely high, especially here in Washington state. I know several doctors who have chosen either not to practice here or who have retired due to the costs involved.
That is only the case with lawyers who continue to pursue the case. Lawyers know that most insurance companies will settle blatant lawsuits out court because it is cheaper than fighting it. Yes, I'm mean cheaper because it is a poor quality way of settling, but that is the case with most medical lawsuits, and when grouped together cost insurance companies more that the few suits won by plaintiffs.
"Trained physicians reviewed a random sample of 1452 closed malpractice claims from five liability insurers to determine whether a medical injury had occurred and, if so, whether it was due to medical error.
"Most of the claims that were not associated with errors (370 of 515 [72 percent]) or injuries (31 of 37 [84percent]) did not result in compensation; most that involved injuries due to error did (653 of 889 [73 percent]). Payment of claims not involving errors occurred less frequently than did the converse form of inaccuracy—non payment of claims associated with errors. When claims not involving errors were compensated, payments were significantly lower on average than were payments for claims involving errors ($313,205 vs. $521,560, P0.004). Overall, claims not involving errors accounted for 13 to 16 percent of the system’s total monetary costs. For every dollar spent on compensation, 54 cents went to administrative expenses (including those involving lawyers,experts, and courts). Claims involving errors accounted for 78 percent of total administrative costs."
Doesn't give percentage of claims settled out of court, especially settlements too low for medical compensation. Lawyers will go for more than full compensation if the case is good.
" 76% of neurologists indicated that patients simply don't understand medical risks ..." An engineer couldn't get away with this statement without implementing correct action, and lawyers are the cause as much as doctors. The medical industry usually depends on legal documents in legal language to communicate this information. It depends on a patient's signature to alleviate from responsibility, but patients often to not read them and often can't understand them if they do. This system needs correcting.
I agree that corrective action is called for - as a matter of routine doctors need to disclose the risks of any proposed treatment. I am no fan of lawyers but blaming lawyers for physicians' failure to disclose risk in the doctor-patient interaction is not justified.
As a patient I cannot recall having ever been informed of any medical risk by a doctor for any medication or procedure. As a matter of course I have learned to take it upon myself to research the adverse effects of any contemplated treatment.
I have been asked at times to sign forms with a ton of generic boilerplate that covers everything under the sun, but such legalities fail to serve as adequate notice of actual risks of the treatment being contemplated.
The blame of the lawyers is poor advice. The blame of the doctors is following it. The blame of the insurance companies is requiring the documents to protect themselves without considering the patient.
After reading the query by a poster complaining that her 85 yr old mother was turned down for DBS I wonder about the wellbeing of the US health system. What are patient rights and how do they fit with doctor responsibility. More to the point what are patient responsibilities.
Parkbear how do US doctors stack up with the rest of the world regarding mal practice suits.
The FDA puts strict restrictions on what and how doctors can prescribe. For example, he mentioned Terazosin (healthunlocked.com/parkinso..., but said he could not prescribe it, but a doctor could prescribe it for prostate issues. He prescribed for me PD medications approved by the FDA for treating PD using the PD guidelines, but mentioned clinical trials were going on to see if they slowed down and improved PD. He said he could not prescribe based on that, but didn't want me 5 years later to say, "Why didn't I take that."
I don't quite agree. I saw one who was so big on himself and arrogant that many of the RateMD (Canada) reviews were very bad. I went online and read them only after I saw him . He could have been sued for some of the things he said to people with obvious bigotry.... narrow-mindedness and intolerance in his mind. Serious personality disorder. It took me over a year to get over it and trust a doctor. I'm sure there aren't many out there that are that bad....hope not! Now I read reviews first.
No I don't believe we are. We do have a College of physicians/surgeons that will take do a full review on complaints made about a doctor. It's a long process but it seems to work.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Is There Hope For Remission?
PM WEBINAR 4 "GUT FEELINGS"
Parkinson's could be otherwise (2).
The Fight Against Parkinson's Disease
Nicotine patches
