Comments on: “Doctor loses malpractice case, kills self”

By: Nonsuited

Nonsuited — Sat, 20 May 2006 16:19:41 +0000

LOL Samson! Your point is well taken.

The adversarial nature of law would seem to attract a different kind of animal. However, as medicine becomes more and more corporatized, I think we will see more “pathologic” behavior on the part of doctors (who are not trained to go for the jugular, but to fix it) as they try to keep their heads above economic water.

By: Samson Isberg

Samson Isberg — Sat, 20 May 2006 02:42:48 +0000

I don’t think the comparison between individual reactions towards med-mal on the one hand and legal malpractice on the other is all that useful. Law school after all attracts a different kind of personality than Med school; I wouldn’t dare to use the word psychopath of course, but could we say a personality type that isn’t very introverted, have little or no appreciation of personal guilt, and therefore wouldn’t be depressed over an accusation of malpractice (or any other wrong-doing for that matter)?

By: Nonsuited

Nonsuited — Fri, 19 May 2006 23:06:26 +0000

In my own experience with legal malpractice, I “pursued” the case with a complaint to the State Bar (as instructed by several lawyer-friends genuinely appalled by the behavior I described). The complaint was dismissed – despite black & white evidence of negligence, breech of fiduciary duty and general misconduct.

The Bar protect its own. And without some solid support from the “legal police”, there is no real point in filing a lawsuit. The deck is stacked bigtime.

I learned the hard/expensive way that legal ethics is a contradiction in terms.

Many plaintiff “experts” in medical malpractice cases are little more than medical whores – they will say anything for a fast buck.

More & more doctors are risking going “bare” these days – thinking that if they have no insurance and no deep pocket, plaintiffs will not bother suing. Now THAT would make an interesting study.

By: wavemaker

wavemaker — Fri, 19 May 2006 22:37:22 +0000

This is a shot in the dark, but one reason I could think of for a doctor to carry “only $250k in liability (in addition to the fact that it’s all he could afford to pay for) is that he had chosen to confine his practice to a specialty (reversing vasectomies) that had a low risk of adverse outcome.

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 19 May 2006 21:29:25 +0000

It looks like he killed himself because he only had $250K in insurance and would personally be on the hook for the other $750K. If that’s the case, it’s the insurer’s fault for not settling.

But, by the way, what the hell is someone doing practicing medicine with only $250K of insurance coverage?

By: David Wilson

David Wilson — Fri, 19 May 2006 16:47:37 +0000

A statistical comparison between medical malpractice and legal malpractice might be an interesting case study. I suppose that once upon a time, legal malpractice suits were touchier because of a more-collegial bar, but in Big New Anonymous Transitory Fractured America, probably not so much. Probably, lawyers feel no more of a sense of professional courtesy toward each other than doctors do to other doctors. After all, for every medical malpractice case, there’s a doctor willing to testify that another doctor screwed up.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Fri, 19 May 2006 15:45:51 +0000

Nonsuited,

I’m 100% certain that Walter was NOT claiming that “medical liability suits shouldn’t be taken so personally…” – he was pointing out that lawyers make that claim. Note his final comment (and indeed, the purpose of this site).

Also, your final comment is spot on.

By: Nonsuited

Nonsuited — Fri, 19 May 2006 12:56:39 +0000

” . . . more akin to a kind of surrogate social injury insurance.”

“For some reason, it’s hard to get physicians to view it that way.”

O COME ON, Walter. Getting sued for malpractice is perhaps the most traumatic thing any physician (who gives a &^%* about what they do) ever goes through. Someone is accusing you of BAD PRACTICE. It’s VERY personal. And it cuts to the core.

Even a “frivolous” suit winds up taking years to resolve (the “nonmonetary” tolls are huge), and costing boatloads of money.

I wonder if lawyers ever found themselves under seige for “malpractice” in the fashion that doctors have, would they be so nonchalant (“nothing personal . . . we just want to ruin your professional reputation and empty your pockets”)? Of course, in terms of ordinary mortals pursuing a legal malpractice claim, the deck is very much stacked in a lawyer’s favor.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Fri, 19 May 2006 09:46:51 +0000

You’re right: the linked UPI news story doesn’t provide enough information to evaluate the suit’s merits one way or the other. It does provide cause for wondering about the size of the award, which was several times the level at which the plaintiff had been willing to settle. And the incident may also serve to shed light on some of the nonmonetary cost imposed by the way we address professional liability claims in this country, whether meritorious or non-. One still sometimes encounters the argument that medical liability suits shouldn’t be taken so personally by defendants as they are really more akin to a kind of surrogate social injury insurance. For some reason, it’s hard to get physicians to view it that way.

By: moob

moob — Thu, 18 May 2006 23:34:50 +0000

Are you trying to portray the urologist as a victim of the system? If so, shouldn’t you ask whether the suit had merit? If it did, would not a verdict for the plaintiff be the right result?

I’m just askin’.