|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > January 2005 > Lawsuits related to refractive surgery on the rise
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Lawsuits related to refractive surgery on the rise
|
|
| gospa68@aol.com 2005-01-27, 8:51 am |
| TOP STORIES 1/19/2005
Surgeon: Protect yourself from lawsuits in refractive surgery practice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAIKOLOA, Hawaii - With a large increase in the volume of refractive
surgical procedures in recent years, the number of malpractice lawsuits
related to refractive surgery is also rising, said Neal A. Sher, MD,
FACS.
"We're all able to be sued by any patient at any time. The
situation is murkier than ever," Dr. Sher said to attendees here at
Hawaii 2005, The Royal Hawaiian Eye Meeting.
Reasons for the rise in lawsuits include the large volume of cases,
high patient expectations, inadequate training of some surgeons and
unprofessional advertising, Dr. Sher said. Other causes can include
offhand comments made to patients by other physicians or staff, and the
increasing sophistication of plaintiff's lawyers concerning
refractive surgery, he said.
Dr. Sher advised surgeons to adhere to guidelines set forth by the
Federal Trade Commission, the American Society of Cataract and
Refractive Surgery and the American Academy of Ophthalmology regarding
appropriate advertising.
He shared several other tips: The surgeon should be available for the
management of complications, should regularly update informed consent
documents, and should discuss issues such as monovision and presbyopia
with the patient preoperatively so that he or she understands all the
risks and potential complications.
Dr. Sher said surgeons should inform patients when the procedure being
performed is off-label. He also advised against performing multiple
attempts at suction in the same eye. When significant complications
develop during surgery on the first eye of a patient, Dr. Sher
recommended abandoning the idea of second eye surgery.
Richard L. Lindstrom, MD, who moderated the session, added that every
refractive surgeon should expect to be sued at least three times during
his or her career, based on statistics. Surgeons should not take
lawsuits personally, should get the best attorney possible - not just
the one recommended by the insurance company - and should not settle
the case too easily, Dr. Lindstrom suggested.
"It's a tough world out there, and it's not getting any better.
Most important, be sure to support legislators who favor tort
reform," Dr. Lindstrom said.
| |
| serebel 2005-01-27, 8:51 am |
| There are ambulance chasers for just about anything these days. This is
no smoking gun you know.
SErebel
| |
|
| In article <1106265790.567166.327040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
gospa68@aol.com wrote:
> TOP STORIES 1/19/2005
> Surgeon: Protect yourself from lawsuits in refractive surgery practice
This post and Sandy's post the other day show that lawsuits brought
against doctors have some effect. Some of them are taking more
precautions in order not to be sued and the end result is that patients
will receive better care and be more judiciously screened. This is a
good thing.
--
~RT
| |
| Barnard 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| Agreed.
| |
| djken@optusnet.com.au 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| America is known to be an extremely litigious society. Any outcome less
than perfect seems to be unacceptable. There seems to be no such thing
as personal responsibility, someone else is always at fault. I truly
believe that most lawsuits against doctors, large corporations, etc.
are more about getting a lottery style payout than justice. The
funniest thing about it all is that in the end you lose out. In
Australia, we have a shortage of obs/gyn's because of the amount of
lawsuits they face. Insurance cover has skyrocketed for both of my
brothers who have not even been sued. One is an emergency medicine
specialist and the other is a pediatric anaethetist. Many are now
throwing up their hands and saying it is too difficult to practice
effectively when costs keep going up due to litigation. Even on this NG
there are threats of lawsuits nearly every day. The most worrying
aspect of all this is the lawyers who have a "no win, no fee" policy.
Lawyers should not be allowed to advertise and they should be made to
charge for their services regardless of the outcome. Lawyers in
Australia have only been allowed to advertise for the past few years.
The increase in lawsuits since that happened has been awe inspiring!
Linda
| |
| CatmanX 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| By that token, should we ban all Refractive Surgeons from advertising?
It is not lawyers advertising that is the issue, it is the quality of
the surgery and the difference between the promised vision and outcome
presented. THe lawyers are simply seeking those who are already
disgruntled.
As far as the no win, no fee goes, the lawyers who do this use it as a
ploy to get people through the door. THey will not take on a case they
think will lose, so they are seeking the potential profitable
customers. At least we don't have contingency fees as in America, where
the lawyers can claim a percentage of the winnings.
| |
| CatmanX 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| Actually, the answer is yes, but I have no bearing on the legislators.
CatmanX wrote:
> By that token, should we ban all Refractive Surgeons from advertising?
| |
| serebel 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| Linda,
You are so right. We are losing good physicians here in the US because
of these ambulance chasers and these ridiculous jury awards.
SErebel
| |
| serebel 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| C'mon Grant, these lawyers advertise "if someone looks at you wrong,
you can get money for you PAIN & SUFFERING". It's like playing the
lottery.
SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| If's fascinationg that that someone who pushes ortho-k, even on 5 year
olds, is talking about a ban on refractive surgery.
By the way.. I was surprised that the "See Clearly Method" is still
being marketed on radio stations. That is appropriate since radio is
not a visual medium. They want $350 for their garbage!
On 21 Jan 2005 18:04:15 -0800, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:
>By that token, should we ban all Refractive Surgeons from advertising?
>
>It is not lawyers advertising that is the issue, it is the quality of
>the surgery and the difference between the promised vision and outcome
>presented. THe lawyers are simply seeking those who are already
>disgruntled.
>
>As far as the no win, no fee goes, the lawyers who do this use it as a
>ploy to get people through the door. THey will not take on a case they
>think will lose, so they are seeking the potential profitable
>customers. At least we don't have contingency fees as in America, where
>the lawyers can claim a percentage of the winnings.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| It is not a new phenomenon. Let us not forget the famous remark by
the plotter of treachery in Shakespeare's King Henry VI: "The first
thing we must do is kill all the lawyers..."
But then, who would get us off?
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| CatmanX 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| The problem is the attitude of the populus, not the lawyers. They are
merely a reflection of the "I want perfection now" attitude that has
crept into the world.
Fortunately over here we don't have the epidemic of ambulance chasers
that I am lead to believe you have over there, but we do have a few
firms that specialize in medical malpractice and advertize accordingly.
But it is like Bill Gates producing the X-Box: if there is a
significant public demand for it, then we will provide for that market,
even if it is not what may be classified as part of the core business.
Yes these lawyers are annoying, but the public demand to punish doctors
is the blame.
P.S. If Linda wants something to really gripe about, it is the women
who sue obstetricials to the poiunt of extinction. It is nearly
impossible to get an ob/gyn here now as they have all retired due to
insurance bills nearing $200,000.00 per year. Even better, they have to
insure themselves for a further 20 years after they retire in case any
further litigation comes along. Now THAT is something to gripe about!!!!
| |
| CatmanX 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| Good to see you are still adding the intellectual comments we need here
so desperately, Cliffy. Keep up the good work.
| |
| djken@optusnet.com.au 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| Hi Catman,
I absolutely agree with you about the obs/gyn situation. Medicine is an
imperfect science as we all know. Patients expect textbook results each
and every time. When I had my son , I was made to pay a non-refundable
fee to my obstetrician of $150.00. When I queried what the money was
for, I was told it was to cover the doctors insurance. You are unable
to claim it back from Medicare or private health insurance. The stories
my brothers tell me would make your hair curl! I don't know if you
remember at one stage in Australia, they were going to allow doctors to
apologise to patients for any errors/problems that occured during
medical procedures.It was felt that this would short circuit any
avenues into legal action. My brothers said that no matter what, they
would not apologise to a patient because it would be seen as an
admission of guilt and they would get sued. Doctors are damned if they
do and damned if they don't. My younger brother is Vice President of a
bank in California (he moved to America 3 years ago). He could not
believe the crap he had to go through for a standard visit to a
hospital in the U.S. So many forms and they were all basic protection
forms for the hospital in case of lawsuits. At least you can still
visit a hospital in Australia without filling in forms.
Regards,
Linda
|
| |
|
|