MALPRACTICE LAW -- A DEFECTIVE PRODUCT
by Peter Huber
Forbes, April 16, 1990 at Pg. 154
Copyright 1990 by Peter Huber. Electronic copies of this document may
be distributed freely, provided that this notice accompanies all copies.
"More medical malpractice than lawsuits," barked a recent front-page
headline in the New York Times. "Thousands of hospital deaths and tens
of thousands of injuries are tied to negligence each year," but "relatively
few victims seek recourse in the courts." Says who? Says a major Harvard
study of malpractice in New York hospitals, described by the newspaper
as "perhaps the most comprehensive ever conducted in the U.S."
That description of the Harvard study reads like an advertisement for
America's trial lawyers -- which, in a way, it is. Defenders of the liability
system are milking the study for all it's worth. In February, on separate
podiums, I debated liability first with Robert Conason, a prominent New
York plaintiffs' lawyer, then with Ralph Nader, surely the plaintiff bar's
favorite consumer activist. Nader and Conason could hardly suppress their
delight over the Harvard report and its attendant publicity.
Can it really be that we advocates of tort reform had it all wrong?
That what American really needs is more malpractice litigation, higher
insurance premiums and yet another overall rise in doctors' bills? Rest
easy. The Harvard study, judging by the advance reports, is quite a different
document than one might have been led to believe by the headline in the
New York Times.
First revelation: Yes, there is negligence in New York hospitals. Substandard
medical care harmed about 1% of hospital patients, according to the Harvard
study. Extrapolating from which one may conclude that negligence "contributed
to" 7,000 deaths and an additional 29,000 injuries in New York hospitals
in 1984. Sometimes the "contribution" will be grave, sometimes it will
shorten life by as little as a day, but this is detail. Extrapolate nationwide,
as Nader and Conason both enthusiastically did, and you are talking "worse
than Vietnam" (Conason) or "worse than all highway accidents" (Nader).
For my part, I can easily believe the Harvard numbers. Hospitals, being
filled (like my Washington, D.C. neighborhood) with sharp knives and potent
drugs, are dangerous places to frequent. I'm stuck with the neighborhood,
but I heartily avoid hospitals except when my condition makes it even more
dangerous to remain elsewhere.
Second revelation -- the one that has Nader and Conason beaming: The
Harvard study found that only 8 out of 306 Harvard-certified victims of
negligence went to court. Which is to say, 97% didn't. For Nader and Conason
the implication is obvious. The country needs more lawsuits. Just as they
always told you, the crisis lies with malpractice itself, not with liability.
Third revelation, the one buried at the end of the Times story, the
one not dwelt on by either Nader or Conason until I was rude enough to
mention it: Only 8 of the negligence victims sued, but another 39 patients
-- who were not victims of any negligence, according to the study -- also
sued. In other words, over 80% of the patients who did sue had no basis
So there we have it. Nader and his friends will tell you that the lawyers
miss 97% of cases involving true negligence -- though it may well be that
many patients, wiser than many lawyers, simply choose not to sue. But over
80% of the cases lawyers do file involve no negligence. And this is only
the beginning. Additional layers of error are inevitable when claims actually
get to a jury.
Of course a 1% rate of negligently caused harm in hospitals is not acceptable;
no avoidable harm is ever acceptable. Yes, we do need mechanisms to weed
out the incompetent fringe of the medical profession. But most doctors
fear, with some justification, that stricter disciplinary measures by hospital
boards will be answered with yet another round of litigation, this time
for libel, wrongful discharge, or anti-competitive denial of hospital privileges.
A doctor need not be paranoid to fear the lawsuit both coming and going.
When college basketball star Hank Gathers died on the court last month,
his family vowed to sue various doctors who -- at Gathers' request -- had
reduced the dosage of a drug prescribed for his irregular heartbeat. A
few days earlier, another player died of a heart attack following a game
-- but only after filing a career-disruption suit against the doctor who
had advised him that he didn't have a heart for basketball. Hospital review
boards face similar legal dilemmas in every disciplinary proceeding they
The big news in the Harvard study is not that some patients get substandard
medical care in hospitals. After all, we don't live in Lake Wobegon, where
all the children are above average. On the medical side of the ledger,
what's striking about the study is that an astonishing 99% of patients
apparently received treatment without any negligently caused harm. My cynical
mind is inclined to doubt that hospitals are really that good. But even
if they're twice as bad as the Harvard study suggests, the doctors are
obviously performing vastly better than certain other professions.
The legal profession, for example. Imagine that the manufacturer of
a car or contraceptive delivered a product that was defective 80% of the
time. Imagine that some diagnostic laboratory ran tests that produced 97%
false negatives and 80% false positives. Or imagine that some doctor failed
to diagnose 97% of all patients with gangrenous legs, and that when he
did reach for a scalpel he applied it to the wrong limb over 80% of the
time. Do you think that Nader might demand reform? I would. Lawyer, sue
Visit Peter Huber's web page
Back to Overlawyered.com articles
library / to top page
Reprinted by author's permission.
All rights reserved.
Original contents of site ©
1999 and other years The Overlawyered Group.
Technical questions: Email