posted
People who file lawsuits against doctors accusing them of medical mistakes rarely do so frivolously, and those who file trivial claims generally receive no payout, researchers have found.
posted
This should be no news to most of us, actually - another smoke and mirrors game from your friendly politicians. Why solve the problem when you can divert attention?
-------------------- "What is sin? I think sin is failure to grow." -Lauren Slater, "Prozac Diary" Posts: 172 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:9-11-9.1. (a) In any action for damages alleging professional malpractice against a professional licensed by the State of Georgia and listed in subsection (f) of this Code section or against any licensed health care facility alleged to be liable based upon the action or inaction of a health care professional licensed by the State of Georgia and listed in subsection (f) of this Code section, the plaintiff shall be required to file with the complaint an affidavit of an expert competent to testify, which affidavit shall set forth specifically at least one negligent act or omission claimed to exist and the factual basis for each such claim.
In other words, in Georgia, you've got to get an opinion from a second doctor that the first doctor was wrong... this is just to FILE the lawsuit, not to win.
Posts: 482 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you describe in Georgia is called a Certificate of Merit here in Pa. I don't know that the requirement has changed things all that much. It takes expert testimony to get past summary judgment (and to get to trial) anyway, so what the C of M does is make the plaintiff get what he/she needs a bit earlier.
The news article is noteworthy, to my mind, more for what it doesn't say (though I'd pretty sure the original article in NEJM covers the points) - just what is the definition of a trivial injury? Defending a lawsuit to the point where it can be dismissed (that's generally summary judgment which cannot be entered until after relevant discovery is completed) still costs a fair amount of money and sucks up a fair amount of time.
Also, how did the study determine which of the verdicts paid were justifiable and the amounts paid were reasonable? I'm not trying to suggest that the study is incorrect, but the brief newstory hardy does justice to what is probably a very detailed report, so the news article leaves questions unanswered.
-------------------- I have no spur to prick the sides of my intent... Posts: 138 | From: Philadelphia, PA | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[flame]](graemlins/flame.gif)
