Following a rules change this spring which for the first time allowed solicitors to share fees with third parties, law firms across England have begun offering money to doctors for the referral of injury cases. “Lawyers Higgins and Co, from Birkenhead in Wirral, has been offering GPs ?175 for every patient they refer to their firm. … The British Medical Association said it believed doctors being offered money for compensation referrals was ‘inappropriate and gives the appearance of a conflict of interest.'” One danger, for example, is that doctors in cases of unclear diagnosis will be given an incentive to diagnose a malady for which compensation can be sought rather than one for which there is no one to blame. “But the Law Society said there was nothing wrong with this practice, as long as all parties were aware that money had been exchanged.” (BBC, Aug. 27) (& letter to the editor, Jan. 17).
Author Archive
“Drunken man passes out, wins $850K from police”
New Jersey: “Ramsey and Bergen County police must pay a man who got drunk and passed out on a snow bank $850,000. A jury decided the police bungled a 911 call, and should have found Frederick Puglisi sooner. …Puglisi walked out of a New Year’s Eve party at a Ramsey hotel in 2001 and passed out on a snow bank for nine hours.” Attorney Samuel Denburg convinced a jury that Puglisi was only 15 percent responsible for his resulting frostbite and other injuries, while the police were 85 percent responsible because the 911 dispatcher did not press for enough details from a bystander or pass all the details on to officers, and because the police conducted only a cursory search of the scene. (“Jury Makes Police Pay $850,000 For Not Finding Partygoer”, WNBC, Sept. 29; “Drunken man passes out, wins $850K from police”, Newsday, Sept. 29; “Drunken ‘Snowman’ Gets $850G Payday”, 1010WINS, Sept. 29).
Edwards’ lawyerly debating skills
The rhetorical techniques that John Edwards employed in his opening and closing arguments before juries were on display Tuesday night in the vice presidential debate, according to lawyers who crossed swords with him in his home state of North Carolina (Lisa Hoppenjans, “Lawyers: Edwards used trial technique”, Winston-Salem Journal, Oct. 6). Thoughts Online and Beldar discuss whether success as a trial advocate nowadays critically depends on the ability to “think on one’s feet”, as opposed to delivering a pre-scripted message, given the emphasis of modern procedure on avoiding surprise at trial. (My own impression is that Edwards was strongest when delivering material suitable to being prepared in advance, and less strong when obliged to depart from the script.) Several commentators note that Edwards saved many of his most slashing attacks for his final round of discussion on a given question, at which point Cheney would have no chance to reply. And George Will thinks Kerry’s selection of Edwards as running mate was a blunder, though for reasons unrelated to the debate (“GOP power plan”, syndicated/Washington Post, Oct. 7).
Oz: better get insurance, golfers
“Social and club golfers should ensure they are covered by insurance before they even think about teeing off, the Victorian Golf Association has warned.” Mark Roy Shanahan was held personally liable for an A$2.6 million award after a charity game 10 years ago at a Queensland country club when his ball hit another golfer in the head. Although club members are often covered by a club’s liability policy, green-fee golfers may be exposed and would be wise to seek alternate sources of insurance, said VGA executive director Doug Fox (Daniella Miletic, “Insurance can stop a poor shot landing in court”, Melbourne Age, Sept. 12).
“We do have too many lawsuits”
So said John Edwards, in tonight’s vice presidential debate with Dick Cheney.
As he has done many times before, Edwards also said he was proud of his record of suing drug companies, insurance companies and HMOs. He did sue those kinds of defendants sometimes, but his actual specialty was suing doctors. Why won’t he say he was proud of that, too?
Unless I missed it, Cheney did not do much to contradict Edwards’ claim that his proposed liability reforms will keep bad cases out of court. For more on that question, see my August WSJ piece.
More: Why, asks Michael Graham of National Review Online. wasn’t Cheney familiar with Edwards’ legal cases? It’s hardly as if they’re above criticism. On the senator’s CP cases, also check out the correspondence back in August between Ramesh Ponnuru and an unnamed letter-writer on NRO “The Corner”. Plus: Prof. Bainbridge comments. FactCheck.org (not .com!) sorts out the Halliburton stuff. Jay Nordlinger says Edwards “sounded more anti-lawsuit than Cheney did”. And CBS News reports, based on feedback from its live poll (in which viewers graded the debaters as they went along using their remote controls), that: “Both candidates scored high points when they talked about the need to limit lawsuit and keep frivolous lawsuits out of the system, Cheney when he mentioned that doctors were being driven out of practice ?- especially OB-GYNs, which gave him very high ratings with women. Edwards did well when he said lawsuits must be limited and when he talked of his own experience fighting in the courts.” (“Uncommitteds Tab Edwards Winner”, Oct. 5).
NYC radio, tonight and tomorrow
The debatable Edwards
Just in time for tonight’s debate, the Capital Research Center is out with an anything-but-flattering report on the North Carolina senator and his role on the Democratic ticket (Robert James Bidinotto, “Kerry, Edwards and ‘the Lawsuit Lobby'”, Organization Trends, Oct. (PDF))(quotes me). And reporter John Riley of Newsday takes a more than usually thorough look at Edwards’ record in medical malpractice work (“GOP may seek to exploit Edwards’ trial history”, Oct. 4)(also quotes me). For this site’s coverage of the Smiling One, see July 19, Aug. 2, Aug. 2, Aug. 17, Aug. 23, Aug. 25, and many other entries on our politics page.
Voices of moderation dept.: RFK Jr.
Prof. Jonathan Adler of Case Western attends a speech given at Case by celebrity environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and blogs the hothead scion’s frothy rant (Sept. 30). (Kennedy on the media, per Adler: “They should all drink poison Kool Aid and restore integrity to their profession.”) Kennedy was widely ridiculed two years ago for repeatedly asserting that large hog-raising operations are a greater threat to American democracy than Osama bin Laden (see Apr. 19-21, 2002) and if Adler’s account is accurate, the embarrassment has by no means abated.
Malpractice discussion wrap-up
Over at Point of Law, the featured discussion has now wrapped up between Dr. Ron Chusid of Doctors for Kerry and our own Ted Frank on the presidential race and medical malpractice reform. If you haven’t looked at the exchange yet, you’ll find that it conveys a wealth of information about the state of the medical liability debate. Not surprisingly, I found Ted persuasive in arguing that Bush has the sounder position on this issue (which still doesn’t mean I’m going to vote for him).
UK government not liable for soldier’s bar fight
Seven years ago Robert Moore got into a barroom brawl with British servicemen at a drinking establishment in Tacoma, Wash. He was injured and wanted to sue…. who? Why, the government of Great Britain, that’s who. He wasn’t going to win that one, not even in the Ninth Circuit, a panel of which pointed out that we have a NATO treaty intended to forestall litigation in exactly such situations. However, Moore’s attorney, J. Bryon Holcomb of Bainbridge Island, Wash., took umbrage. “The Ninth Circuit just ignored the facts,” Holcomb said. “If people in this country knew how little chance they had in our federal court system, there would be a revolution tomorrow. They would have the guillotines out storming the courthouse looking for candidates.” What is Mr. Holcomb trying to do talking that way, set himself up as the Geoffrey Fieger of the Pacific Northwest? (Justin M. Norton, “Man Involved in Bar Fight TKO’d by 9th Circuit”, The Recorder, Sept. 24). Martin Grace also comments (Oct. 2).