|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Thursday, April 22, 2004As a medical-malpractice defense attorney and former practicing anesthesiologist, I read with interest the report on malpractice by Studdert et al. (Jan. 15 issue).1 The authors note that "because they must absorb the costs of managing litigation, . . . plaintiffs' attorneys have an incentive to make careful decisions about which cases to take." Unfortunately, this is not always what I see in practice. Some plaintiffs' lawyers simply file a complaint, essentially a form on which they fill in the blanks with a few pertinent facts. The burden then shifts to the defendant to provide a defense. This process involves months, if not years, of discovery (e.g., depositions and interrogatories), often primarily at the defendant's expense. An unjustified case is then often dropped when the plaintiff's attorney is confronted with discovery that is inconsistent with the complaint. In the meantime, the defendant has paid legal bills, court expenses, transcript fees, expert fees, and other expenses. From my own experience, and those of other doctors I know, what this attorney describes is the norm. Plaintiff's attorneys are known to file cases against the wrong doctor because they didn't take the time to find out which Dr. Jones at X hospital took care of the patient. Not to mention the practice of suing every doctor the patient has ever seen, even if they had nothing to do with the case in question. These sorts of abuses should be easy to correct with legislation without restricting anyone's access to justice. Shouldn't they? (A fine for filing cases against the wrong person or someone not involved in the case would be a good start.) posted by Sydney on 4/22/2004 09:53:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
