6 ms·

The $250,000 limit on medical malpractice suits in Texas is bullshit. Protecting doctors from frivolous lawsuits is fantastic in theory, but if make a grave mis

by fsckin 13y ago

The $250,000 limit on medical malpractice suits in Texas is bullshit. Protecting doctors from frivolous lawsuits is fantastic in theory, but if make a grave mistake, you should be held accountable. 'License to Kill' isn't that far from the truth. It's expensive, but you can literately kill people and get away with it. Here's my story: We saw two doctors in Texas, both were convinced that my wife had advanced bowel cancer. The second doctor confirming the diagnosis was the Worst Day in my life. We had no idea the doctors had colluded behind our backs, negating the exercise of getting a 'second unbiased opinion'. We had gone to a separate chain of hospitals and got the first diagnosis regurgitated to us. She went in for a laparoscopic bowel resection surgery and woke up with: * A nasty scar from pelvis to belly button * Temporary ileostomy bag (her worst nightmare, requiring another surgery to remove, more nasty scarring) * Hysterectomy (Sterilized, no kids yet) * News that the previous diagnosis of cancer was incorrect. * New diagnosis: Endometriosis (Can be treated without surgery in most cases) The doctor was practically in tears when he broke the news to me. The doctor was paid $60,000. The anesthesiologist and hospital split the rest, and our insurance paid in excess of $150,000 for the first surgery that wasn't medically necessary. The ileostomy reversal was performed in another state and cost another $40,000. Insurance is still paying for emergency room visits a few times a year. We eventually consulted with several lawyers, and none would take the case, even the scummiest bastard I've ever met who would probably take candy from a baby if given a chance to do so. They all came to the same conclusion: "There is no question that you have been severely and permanently wronged. Due to complications, you will need regular emergency medical attention for the rest of your life. If we took this case to court, we would win it every time. Unfortunately, it is not worth it to us due to the $250,000 limit. There is zero chance they will settle, there is no incentive for them to do so. A trial will be long, drawn out, and eventually, you could owe us more than the jury awards." Thanks, Republicans.

mikeyouse 13y ago
Tort Reform (essentially limited liability) is in direct conflict with the only corrective mechanism in the 'free market'. I've never understood why republicans support it so earnestly.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Perhaps because tort cases can wind up looking remarkably similar a lynch mob?
  - lkrubner 13y ago
    You mean a lynch mob that patiently waits for weeks or months while the defense lays out its side of the story? A lynch mob that abides by whatever decision a judge or jury eventually reaches, after weeks or months of testimony? That kind of lynch mob?
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      I mean the kind of lynch mob that extracts comically absurd recompense for errors. I'm a little busy to go digging for examples right now, but suffice to say that when a doctor has made a small mistake he does not deserve to be subsequently ruined.
      - mtdewcmu 13y ago
        Patients don't deserve to be ruined, either. Risk from unfair lawsuits and misfires of civil law are something we all have to accept.
        sliverstorm 13y ago
        Patients don't deserve to be ruined, either. Agreed Risk from unfair lawsuits and misfires of civil law are something we all have to accept. Not agreed. First of all, you give no reason why "it just has to be this way". Is there no compromise, no middle-ground? Second of all, it's awfully easy for the patient to decide the doctor should bear all the risk, eh?
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Is there no compromise, no middle-ground? A civil lawsuit system with proof requirements for damages but full exposure to at least all actual damages is the middle ground (or at least one of them.) Patient bears all or disproportionate risk (as is the case with damage caps or not having a liability system at all) is an extreme, as would be doctor bears disproportionate risk (which would be the case with something less than the usual civil standard of proof, or a presumption of guilt that had to be rebutted). You can't really get "doctor bears all risk", because no matter how easy it is to punish the doctor, or how extreme the punishments are, the patient is still going to bear the risk of non-compensable injury or death from medical malpractice. > Second of all, it's awfully easy for the patient to decide the doctor should bear all the risk, eh? That's not even a possible option (much less a fair description of anything on the table), so while it might be easy for someone to decide it in the abstract, its not really relevant to the issue at hand.
viggity 13y ago
There are two kinds of damages in a lawsuit, punitive and compensatory. Compensatory damages compensate for the actual wrong that was done and any corrective action needed (i.e. additional surgeries, physical therapy, lost wages, etc). Punitive damages are put in place as a punishment and to hopefully ensure that doctors/engineers/professionals are take more precaution when conducting their business. It is my understanding that the 250K cap is on punitive damages only (at least in most states). I'm sorry that your wife was wronged and 250K does sound low to me, but the cap is there in general to prevent a runaway jury from awarding outlandish sums ($10-100 million) to punish a single person, because ultimately society in general pays that $10-100 million in the form of more expensive goods and services.
- wehadfun 13y ago
  I think society pays a higher cost by keeping these bozos around.
  - talmand 13y ago
    Why? Because they made one mistake that affected this one couple? I can't imagine the pain they have but it sadly doesn't affect society much in of itself. Cases of extremely high damages affects other doctors who didn't make such mistakes, which in turn affects their own patients. Runaway punitive damages affect society more than you may think, but you have to consider areas outside the medical field as well. Tort reform is necessary in lots of ways but I would agree the $250,000 cap is a problem. If the cap is on punitive damages only then I would imagine a lawsuit would have taken the future medical expenses into account when deciding the payout. But since there's no potential huge punitive damages payout then apparently no lawyer is interested in taking on the case. Seems to me that a great deal of the system falling apart failed this couple, not just some BS tort reform law.
    - wehadfun 13y ago
      Cases of extremely high damages prevent doctors like this from making the same mistake twice (by putting them out of business). Do you really think it is good for society if doctors can screw up with no penalty. If a pilot made mistakes this stupid they would be unemployed or dead. Other cost: More strain on her community's local medical resources Less kids growing up in what could be a positive household
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>Protecting doctors from frivolous lawsuits is fantastic in theory, In principle, we want everyone to be protected from frivolous lawsuits. The $250k limit for all practical purposes protects doctors from nearly everyone's lawsuit, frivolous or not. The absence of normal market forces in medical practice makes it even more important to have competent and strong oversight. We get none of that in Texas. Hey, at least malpractice insurance is cheap! (I wonder if it really is.) OTOH, there are now very few reasons not to travel to another country for major health care, like surgery. Something bad may still happen, but you aren't likely to pay as much for it, and you might even be treated more fairly if it does.
talmand 13y ago
I see a great deal of people to blame for your pain than just one group of politicians. Was there nothing to be done about the two doctors colluding behind your back? Because that doesn't sound like medical malpractice to me, that sounds like fraud.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Good grief, that's awful. I am so sorry.

by fsckin 13y ago

mikeyouse 13y ago

Tort Reform (essentially limited liability) is in direct conflict with the only corrective mechanism in the 'free market'. I've never understood why republicans support it so earnestly.

sliverstorm 13y ago
Perhaps because tort cases can wind up looking remarkably similar a lynch mob?
- lkrubner 13y ago
  You mean a lynch mob that patiently waits for weeks or months while the defense lays out its side of the story? A lynch mob that abides by whatever decision a judge or jury eventually reaches, after weeks or months of testimony? That kind of lynch mob?
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    I mean the kind of lynch mob that extracts comically absurd recompense for errors. I'm a little busy to go digging for examples right now, but suffice to say that when a doctor has made a small mistake he does not deserve to be subsequently ruined.
    - mtdewcmu 13y ago
      Patients don't deserve to be ruined, either. Risk from unfair lawsuits and misfires of civil law are something we all have to accept.
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        Patients don't deserve to be ruined, either. Agreed Risk from unfair lawsuits and misfires of civil law are something we all have to accept. Not agreed. First of all, you give no reason why "it just has to be this way". Is there no compromise, no middle-ground? Second of all, it's awfully easy for the patient to decide the doctor should bear all the risk, eh?
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Is there no compromise, no middle-ground? A civil lawsuit system with proof requirements for damages but full exposure to at least all actual damages is the middle ground (or at least one of them.) Patient bears all or disproportionate risk (as is the case with damage caps or not having a liability system at all) is an extreme, as would be doctor bears disproportionate risk (which would be the case with something less than the usual civil standard of proof, or a presumption of guilt that had to be rebutted). You can't really get "doctor bears all risk", because no matter how easy it is to punish the doctor, or how extreme the punishments are, the patient is still going to bear the risk of non-compensable injury or death from medical malpractice. > Second of all, it's awfully easy for the patient to decide the doctor should bear all the risk, eh? That's not even a possible option (much less a fair description of anything on the table), so while it might be easy for someone to decide it in the abstract, its not really relevant to the issue at hand.

viggity 13y ago

There are two kinds of damages in a lawsuit, punitive and compensatory. Compensatory damages compensate for the actual wrong that was done and any corrective action needed (i.e. additional surgeries, physical therapy, lost wages, etc). Punitive damages are put in place as a punishment and to hopefully ensure that doctors/engineers/professionals are take more precaution when conducting their business. It is my understanding that the 250K cap is on punitive damages only (at least in most states). I'm sorry that your wife was wronged and 250K does sound low to me, but the cap is there in general to prevent a runaway jury from awarding outlandish sums ($10-100 million) to punish a single person, because ultimately society in general pays that $10-100 million in the form of more expensive goods and services.

wehadfun 13y ago
I think society pays a higher cost by keeping these bozos around.
- talmand 13y ago
  Why? Because they made one mistake that affected this one couple? I can't imagine the pain they have but it sadly doesn't affect society much in of itself. Cases of extremely high damages affects other doctors who didn't make such mistakes, which in turn affects their own patients. Runaway punitive damages affect society more than you may think, but you have to consider areas outside the medical field as well. Tort reform is necessary in lots of ways but I would agree the $250,000 cap is a problem. If the cap is on punitive damages only then I would imagine a lawsuit would have taken the future medical expenses into account when deciding the payout. But since there's no potential huge punitive damages payout then apparently no lawyer is interested in taking on the case. Seems to me that a great deal of the system falling apart failed this couple, not just some BS tort reform law.
  - wehadfun 13y ago
    Cases of extremely high damages prevent doctors like this from making the same mistake twice (by putting them out of business). Do you really think it is good for society if doctors can screw up with no penalty. If a pilot made mistakes this stupid they would be unemployed or dead. Other cost: More strain on her community's local medical resources Less kids growing up in what could be a positive household

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

>Protecting doctors from frivolous lawsuits is fantastic in theory, In principle, we want everyone to be protected from frivolous lawsuits. The $250k limit for all practical purposes protects doctors from nearly everyone's lawsuit, frivolous or not. The absence of normal market forces in medical practice makes it even more important to have competent and strong oversight. We get none of that in Texas. Hey, at least malpractice insurance is cheap! (I wonder if it really is.) OTOH, there are now very few reasons not to travel to another country for major health care, like surgery. Something bad may still happen, but you aren't likely to pay as much for it, and you might even be treated more fairly if it does.

talmand 13y ago

I see a great deal of people to blame for your pain than just one group of politicians. Was there nothing to be done about the two doctors colluding behind your back? Because that doesn't sound like medical malpractice to me, that sounds like fraud.

anigbrowl 13y ago

Good grief, that's awful. I am so sorry.