|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > March 2005 > Malpractice caps (From NYTimes 2/27)
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 |
Malpractice caps (From NYTimes 2/27)
|
|
|
| Just curious what people on this NG think about this. It will directly
affect those who seek monetary damages for LASIK malpractice.
Do you think it will help or hurt the industry to police itself? How
will it affect consent forms? Can one put a monetary cap on their eyes
at $250,000? Sandy, do you agree with this? What about Brent and others
who are pushing so hard for litigation?
"This month, the administration won the first round in its fight to curb
litigation, as Congress passed legislation to sharply restrict
class-action lawsuits against companies. Next up is medical malpractice.
In his re-election campaign, Mr. Bush repeatedly decried "junk lawsuits"
as the bane of the nation's doctors. The issue was deftly framed, and
the subtext was clear: greedy lawyers were attacking the Marcus Welbys
of America, good doctors doing their best.
In a speech last month in Illinois, Mr. Bush again called for strict
limits on medical malpractice suits, including "a hard cap of $250,000"
on what patients could recover for non-economic damages like physical
and emotional pain and suffering. Returning to his election-year themes,
Mr. Bush said doctors "should be focused on fighting illnesses, not
fighting lawsuits."
"We need to fix a broken medical liability system," he said, and he
called on Congress to act this year. This month, a medical litigation
overhaul bill, mirroring the administration's proposals, was introduced
in the Senate by two Republican senators, John Ensign of Nevada and Judd
Gregg of New Hampshire."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/b...y/27mal.html?th
--
~RT
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
| I personally believe that the changes as currently proposed are giving
"carte blanche" to industry at the expense of individual proven to be
victims.
I have no problem with tort reform and limitations on malpractice
litigation - they are certainly needed - but a $250,000 cap on
non-economic damages seems dreadfully low. This is effectively what
we have in California, and we seem to get along fine, but this seems
to be an arbitrary and artificial determination that no person's pain
and suffering is worth more than $250k. That seems rather arrogant
and narrow minded to me. In a decade, $250k may be what it costs to
buy a Chevy.
What seems much more appropriate would be to take the determination of
what is appropriate non-economic damages away from the often emotional
jury and into a more objective tribunal of judges. Let the jury
decide if non-economic damages are appropriate, and then let a
tribunal decide what amount is appropriate. Yes, this has some
constitutional problems, but you asked for opinions.
If passed, I don't think it will make a lot of difference regarding
the LASIK industry policing itself, but if it makes any difference at
all I doubt that it will be a difference that is good for the
patients.
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.
| |
| serebel 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
| I think a hard cap is what is needed. Possibly adjusted for inflation.
This "pain and suffering" portion should also not be decided by juries.
ie: the hot coffee old lady vs Mcdonalds. The ambulance chasers along
with their handpicked juries will bankrupt anyone or anything they can
get their claws into, regardless of the repercussions. I can cite
hundreds of cases where good doctors are forced to give up their
practices or order unnecessary and costly tests because they have to
worry about covering their XXX as opposed to practicing medicine. For
every valid lawsuit, there are hundreds of frivilous ones behind them,
and the quack ones are not only clogging up the court system, but
moronic juries are doling out lottery type awards. The system is most
definately broken and we are all paying the price.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
| You have brought up a very important component to western healthcare:
the high cost of covering your backside. Millions of dollars worth of
unnecessary tests are ordered every year by doctors who need to prove
that they are correct in their diagnosis to keep from being sued.
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.
| |
| Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com - LASIKmemorial.com 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
|
RT wrote:
> Just curious what people on this NG think about this. It will
directly
> affect those who seek monetary damages for LASIK malpractice.
>
> Do you think it will help or hurt the industry to police itself? How
> will it affect consent forms? Can one put a monetary cap on their
eyes
> at $250,000? Sandy, do you agree with this? What about Brent and
others
> who are pushing so hard for litigation?
RT, the cap isn't the trade for vision. It's for pain and suffering.
Other losses, such as projected loss of income, don't really have a
cap, which is why former pilot Steven Post received an award of $4
million or so--what he lost in projected future wages as an airline
captain after bad lasik cost him his pilot's license.
Whatever award I would have received from a jury would have been
strictly for pain and suffering, (and possibly for past and future
medical bills), because I was able to continue working even while
having additional eye surgeries. Although I had hired an additional
employee to do my email quotes for me because I was having so much
trouble with multiple images on the computer screen, my business was
flourishing, so it would have been tough to prove that she had been
hired solely to help with the existing work, and not to also help
handle the additional business.
My income is far higher than five years ago, so even if I had received
loss of potential income compensation based on what I was making then,
it would not really have been a fair amount.
Fraud is eligible for punitive damages, also not subject to the cap.
One of the problems I have with a cap for pain and suffering is that
there are different degrees. For instance, the lady who has lived in
the dark for six years now, thanks to extreme photophobia post-lasik,
and with painfully dry eyes. Her pain and suffering are far, far
greater than what I have gone through, so to limit her to the same cap
as someone like me is unfair. Another friend who's had multiple cornea
transplants after lasik and still cannot be fitted with a gas perm lens
so that she can watch television or play tennis like she used to....she
wasn't working at the time of her surgery, so she couldn't claim a loss
of income, but the cost to her quality of life is immeasurable! She
has suffered far more than I have and I think her level of suffering
should be compensated in the millions.
Another thing to consider is that California's cap was set at $250,000
back in the 70s, and the value of that in today's dollars is somewhere
around $60,000 if I remember correctly.
I really have mixed feelings about the issue, because I look at states
like Nevada, where there is what, one obstetrician remaining? Perhaps
there should be a deductible for malpractice judgments, and the doctor
should have to personally cough up some of it. That would cause them
to police themselves better. When we have lasik surgeons spending $6
million on rock star mansions, it's hard to feel very sorry for the
docs and their malpractice insurance rates.
Just some scattered thoughts. I'm too busy to really ponder this right
now.
| |
|
| In article <1109659617.091691.230910@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com - LASIKmemorial.com"
<sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
> Perhaps
> there should be a deductible for malpractice judgments, and the doctor
> should have to personally cough up some of it.
That's an interesting idea. That isn't in place already?
--
~RT
| |
| serebel 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
|
RT wrote:
> In article <1109659617.091691.230910@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com - LASIKmemorial.com"
> <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>
doctor[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> That's an interesting idea. That isn't in place already?
>
> --
> ~RT
That's front end-back end. Higher premiums vs higher deductibles. All
insurance policies work this way.
SErebel
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
| Considering how many lawyers are in the Senate, it is amazing to me
that this legislation still has some chance of passing. The moving of
class action lawsuits to federal courts will remove millions of dollars
of potential income from liability case lawyers working at the state
level.
One can only wonder when the lawyers will draw a "line in the sand" and
fight tooth-and-nail to ebb this next erosion of their future income
potential.
I think that the BEST feature of all legislation that is being
considered for limiting malpractice caps is mandatory arbitration
before trial. When the patient and the doctor "see" each other in a
more human way, like during arbitration, the risk of dealing with a
ridiculous jury award is much lower.
RT wrote:
> Just curious what people on this NG think about this. It will
directly
> affect those who seek monetary damages for LASIK malpractice.
>
> Do you think it will help or hurt the industry to police itself? How
> will it affect consent forms? Can one put a monetary cap on their
eyes
> at $250,000? Sandy, do you agree with this? What about Brent and
others
> who are pushing so hard for litigation?
>
> "This month, the administration won the first round in its fight to
curb
> litigation, as Congress passed legislation to sharply restrict
> class-action lawsuits against companies. Next up is medical
malpractice.
> In his re-election campaign, Mr. Bush repeatedly decried "junk
lawsuits"
> as the bane of the nation's doctors. The issue was deftly framed, and
> the subtext was clear: greedy lawyers were attacking the Marcus
Welbys
> of America, good doctors doing their best.
>
> In a speech last month in Illinois, Mr. Bush again called for strict
> limits on medical malpractice suits, including "a hard cap of
$250,000"
> on what patients could recover for non-economic damages like physical
> and emotional pain and suffering. Returning to his election-year
themes,
> Mr. Bush said doctors "should be focused on fighting illnesses, not
> fighting lawsuits."
>
> "We need to fix a broken medical liability system," he said, and he
> called on Congress to act this year. This month, a medical litigation
> overhaul bill, mirroring the administration's proposals, was
introduced
> in the Senate by two Republican senators, John Ensign of Nevada and
Judd
> Gregg of New Hampshire."
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/b...y/27mal.html?th
>
> --
> ~RT
|
| |
|
|