Slight hijack: I’ve made it clear that I don’t do med-mal work, but I have sued dozens of doctors. Just not for malpractice. (I have referred a case or two.)
Who are the plaintiffs and why are they picking on these poor defendant docs?
(This is the part that the cynical part of me enjoys after hearing docs constantly complain about litigious plaintiffs.)
Why, other doctors, of course. Just about every doctor goup who hires a new doc makes him or her sign a restrictive covenant stating that the employee-doc won’t open a competing practice in the area if he or she quits (or is fired).
They’ve got to be reasonable to be enforced, though. Actually, I’m kind of the office expert on these. I draft, enforce or defend them all the time. You want to enforce or break this kind of restriction in Illinois? I’m your guy. Sometimes it’s especially funny when an employer-doc (who has complained in the past about malpractice claims) can’t understand why he can’t stop his doc-employees from practicing anywhere the northern half of the state and wants to sue immediately.
Overall, though, I’ve represented more doctors than I’ve sued.
If Karl were practicing in the states, couldn’t he simply go before the judge and make a motion to be dismissed from the case since there is nothing to even suggest that he was even remotely connected to the original surgery?
Man. I’m sitting here on Night Float, the service where I cover the other residents’ patients overnight, admitting any new patients and putting out any fires that may pop up with the old ones.
Most of the calls I get don’t even require me to see the patient–things like Tylenol, or something for sleep, or a nurse just calling some lab results to me. As a result, my name is probably in the chart of a few dozen patients that I have never even seen.
If having one’s name in the chart is all it takes, I’m amazed that I haven’t been named in a lawsuit before now. (We see and cross-cover a lot of patients around here.) It was disheartening enough when I had to respond to a complaint from the state medical board (a truly ridiculous one, at that); I don’t think I’d handle a med mal case very well right now, even if I knew that my only involvement was the nurse calling me to say that the 3:00 AM CBC was OK.
This is ridiculous, and I’m sorry you have to deal with this. At the very least, you should be compensated for any costs and for the time you spent dealing with this.
Perhaps a better system would allow an extended deadline if it could be shown that the delay was based on good cause (such as the fact hat it could not have been known that someone was at fault). In any event, you are merely offering a reson for the lawyers to do what they do. What you are saying is that they are not just harrassing people without any self interest - they have actual interests at stake. Bottom line is that that they are causing a lot of difficulty and aggravation for people that have not done anything wrong. So the system is to blame, but the lawyers are to blame as well.
Also, I disagree with your claim that the insurance comanies won’t settle if there is no case (though it may be true in the specific area of medical malpractice). I knew a guy who accidently hit & killed a crazy person who wandered into an unlit country road in middle of the night. The auto insurance company settled for $10K, claiming that they knew the guy was not at fault, but the chance to settle a death case for $10K was too good to pass up. Then they turned around and raised the guy’s insurance rates.
You attempted to justify the practices that led to the situation in the OP. It should not be difficult to see that in embracing faulty general principles, individuals are unnecessarily hurt.**
Common sense, backed by readily available medical opinion, should suffice in cases like those described in the OP.**
Tough to go beyond word of mouth, because as you agree, settlements are confidential. If you’re claiming that every settlement is based on a solid case, you must think your audience is infinitely gullible. Feel free to provide cites of your own.
Speaking of getting medical records from a doctor’s office…
Some years ago, I was tested for allergies and given 18 months of allergy shots. I then moved to another state.
I called to request copies of my records so as to continue treatment. Was told to put the request in writing. Did so. Still no records. Made three requests, never got the records.
Since my treatment was being delayed, I gave up and I started the treatment regimen competely from the beginning with another doctor, including being re-stuck with a grid of 80-odd allergens to re-determine exactly what it was that I was allergic to! :mad:
Oh, and that first doctor, who ignored my requests? Not only was he an M.D., he was also a lawyer! :eek:
You mentioned theat you were served with a “subpoena”. Generally, subopenas are documents that require the production of documents or witnesses, but does not neccesarily mean that you are a party (in your case, defendant) to the lawsuit.
To try and clarify, lets assume a basic car accident. The person who is destined to become the defendant is served with a “Summons”. The pedestrian who merely observed the accident gets a “subpoena” which requires him to turn over any relevant documents or submit to a deposition.
You also said that you were outside of the US, so the terms there may bit a bit different. I just wanted to make sure you weren’t getting worried about something that may not be as bad as it seems…
A big problem with the American legal industry seems to me to be:
-lawyers can do an incredible amount of damage to innocent people, and they have NO obligation to compensate anyone for this damage. For example:
a doctor is sued for malpractice- he has to hire a lawyer to defend himself. He wins the case…and yest he has suffered financial losses, and his reputation is now suspect. Suppose you get dragged into a malpractice case-you must also take time away from work to testify, etc.
Finally, the American taxpayer pays the brunt of all these costs, becuase the courts are totally free to the users-if you consider that it probably sosts around $1000/.hour to run a courthouse, you can see that lawsuits are probably the most incredibly costly ways to resolve disputes.
I’d like to see some fundamental reform (like a national system of imdemnity) to compensate victims of malpractice, and get these things out of the courtrooms.
It is even worse in criminal law…billions are spent on trials for criminals, and vistims of violent crimes get nothing! Interestingly, FINLAND has a national system for compensation (for victims of crime); that system ought to be enacted here.