View Profile
View Forum Posts
Wans't me on trial...
Got picked for jury duty last month and on Monday got picked for a jury. Was interesting to say the least but after that experience I'm really a firm believer in reform for these medical cases. The essentials of the case was a 90 year old woman hit a 60 year old man broadside. This was not your average 90 year old woman, very aware and besides some arthritis in her knees in very good physical shape. He was claiming neck pain and some other maladies caused by the accident including carpal tunnel syndrome, made pizzas for 40 years BTWAnyhow after listening to 2.5 days of testimony most of which was medical testimony the only testimony that really mattered to us was the lack thereof. There was only one witness that actually saw the accident, a former employee of the plaintiff and she could neither confirm nor deny what the plaintiff was claiming. The main contention was that this woman drove into the opposing traffic lanes when she hit him. Anyhow this intersection was well known to many of us and how bad it was... The impact itself was minimal, neither air blag deployed in either car. The old woman's car had nothing more than what looked like she rubbed up against something. No bends, breaks..nothing. She even got out of car right after the accident... No one believed anything he said about the accident. Took about 15 minutes to decide, it was that cut and dried. It also helped that there was state policeman on the jury that had some accident reconstruction training.
Anyhow back to the reform. The two doctors testimony alone amounted to a cost of nearly $7000. The one doctor was there for about an hour and his bill was $3500. Add that to the lawyers fees, court fees and everyone else involved and I'm sure the cost of this trial was well into the $20,000 range all of which went for the most part for Lawyers and doctors fees. Quite ridiculous to say the least. I'm not saying that the doctors and lawyers should not make a buck nor am I saying the man should not have the right to sue but this was an obvious grab for some cash and something should be done to prevent it in the future.
BTW for my 3 days i got paid $21 and one lunch, actually cost me more in gas.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 24 of 24
-
-
I hear ya. Its really a very organized scam in my opinion. There are a handful of dispicable personal injury firms in every major city that gobble up cases like this. You'll know the firms because they are the ones that advertise in between The People's Court and Jerry Springer and have phone numbers like 210-CAR-WRECK. They've got doctors in their pocket who take pre-existing conditions...ANYTHING...and testify that it was caused by the accident. And then they overprescribe treatment like crazy to pad the bill. People always talk about tort reform but they've taken that about as far as it can go. Its time to reform the medical practice. These types of cases couldn't happen without crooked docs.
-
The doctor for the plaintiff's who charged $3500 was his treating physician... at least a year or two after this accident. He had a pain specialist practice. Anyhow the defense lawyer asked him if it was true that he had testified in 200-300 cases like this.. His answer was he wasn't sure. Find it odd that his treating physician just happens to to go to court quite a bit.
The one for the defense got 2 thousand for his testimony and it was done via video tape. they took it a few weeks before the trial. He had also examined the plaintiff for 15 minutes a few months prior to that at cost of $650 - $1000, the doctor was not sure which.... Also said he did about 15 of these a month besides his practice where he saw about 300 patients a week... That's an obscene amount of money. He's making over $100,000 a year just on the 15 examinations alone. Even at $650 a pop @15 a month is $117,000 a year for 45 hours work. If he could do nothing but he could make 6 million a year. That's besides the 1 -2 hour $2000 testimony. -
Possibly, but this is a legal issue first and foremost. These types of cases definately couldn't happen without crooked lawyers.Originally Posted by adam
How about reforming the legal system first?Regards,
Rob -
The rub there is that everyone is entitled to representation. It of course doesn't help that they have all these commercials on TV that Adam mentioned during the hours when people should be at work... Who really need to reform is the people that bring the lawsuits such as penalties if they lose... maybe something like they have to pick the tab up for the trial if they do.Originally Posted by rhegedus
In this particular case though the guy wasn't poor, possibly even well off. He was pulling out the parking lot of a business that he owned at the time. Apparently it's up for sale so I guess maybe he was looking for retirement bonus. As I mentioned above he was trying to blame carpal tunnel syndrome on this accident which I think really made a lot of jurors a little pissed considering he's been making pizzas forever... The o her thing was that he had arthritis in his neck simply due to age which both doctors agreed too, one said that the accident aggravated it causing the pain..... The other said that since it didn't crop up for 10 days after the accident it wasn't due to the accident. The man never sought any medical attention until 10 days aftert the accident and sought legal advice the next day.
That's another thing, I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person and some of the things they were discussing were not exactly easy to comprehend. There was one juror there that I think we all worried about because you could tell he was just some punk ass kid with no intelligence.. fortunately he didn't show up the second day and got the boot. :P
Another thing I found odd was that they didnt ask for a specific amount in damages. The only thing listed was for his unpaid medical expenses. The spot for the pain and suffering was just a blank, if we had gotten that far we could have written anything there.
-
Everyone is entitled to legalrepresentation/advice - yes, but up to a point.
Where is the line drawn to stop opportunism? It doesn't take a legal mind to spot a scam....Regards,
Rob -
Good question... Besides my idea I don't see any other way. Mandatory damages for losing a trial would definitely put a damper on many of these frivilous lawsuits where they are just spinning the wheel of fortune but that would also prevent a lot of people who should receive damages from filing out of fear of losing. Not positive but I guess the plaintiff in my case can now be sued by the defendant for damages? Not really sure but that's just more legal fees for the lawyers, it's a vicious cycle and by the time your done no matter who wins or loses the only real winners are the lawyers.Originally Posted by rhegedus
A lot of theses firms don't even charge you unless they win... One of the commercials that really gets me pissed is the one about being in an accident with a truck. Not a car, not anything but specifically commercial trucks. The lawyers know that trucking firms carry hefty policies, much more than your average citizen is going to have so they go after them.
One of the troubles here in the US is that something like 50% of congress are lawyers, hardly a atmosphere to get legislation passsed to stop this nonsense. Another issue is we have so many lawyers, there's simply not enough real business for them so they have to make business. -
I could not disagree more. That's been the exact attitude of the general public for the last ~7 years and our legislators have just bowed down and tried to appease them by passing tort reform statutes like mad. Seriously, look up all of the tort reform statutes in the last 5 years and then tell me if you've ever seen more reform in any industry or occupation. In the end, most legal minds think that it has only made the problem worse. Damages and claims have been capped so low that its very hard to make a living in torts anymore and that's why you actually now see more of these types of cases. And ultimately the caps hurt those with valid claims most. The fact of the matter is that our entire legal system is based on weighing evidence rather than excluding it. If you've got even a reasonable belief that your suit is valid, you can file it. If you've got any evidence at all of your physical damages, present it and let the jury weigh its value and credibility. If you are flat out lying you can be punished severely, but the other side has to prove that in each case and that's not easy, especially when you are dealing with a professional liar like some of these medical expert witnesses. The accountability needs to fall on the doctors who are testifying and the legal profession has no authority to impose that.Originally Posted by rhegedus
-
That's my exact point. As long as they've got a medical doctor claiming that they have damages resulting from the incident, then the suit is not frivilous. There needs to be something other than a conscience to prevent the doctor from lying.Originally Posted by thecoalman
-
Member
- Nov 2002
- Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
How about setting up a medical review similar to the Jury system. Make it so that Doctors, selected at random in the discipline pertinent to the case, must provide services for a nominal fee.
The plaintiffs may still have their experts but the stories may change when open to the scrutiny of 3 (say) impartial medical professionals. -
The number of reforms is irrelevant if none of them have achieved the desired effect.Originally Posted by adam
I don't understand - if such work pays so poorly then why the competition to get it?Originally Posted by adam
Here's a novel idea for ambulance chasers - if law doesn't pay get another job, flip some burgers or do anything except trying to extort money under false pretences.
Surely a lawyer must agree to take a case before there is any expert witness involvement? Can't a lawyer refuse a case on the basis that he believes the evidence to be insubstantial? And if expert witness is needed, how about getting it from someone who is qualified to do so, not some rent-a-quote with an MD off a Kellogs packet.Originally Posted by adam
If lay people like the jury that the coalman was on could see through this scam, why couldn't the lawyer?
This is a legal issue, first and foremost.Regards,
Rob -
It WAS a legal issue years ago when the reform started. Now its been reformed as far as it can go...that's my point. Its time to put some responsibility on the medical field now, since there is virtually none. There are more ethical restrictions placed on lawyers than ANY other profession. But if a lawyer bases their case on the opinion of a "credible" doctor who is testifying under oath, than the court has to honor that evidence. The real problem is that such medical opinions should not be deamed credible!
Look there are as many ambulance chasing lawyers in the legal profession as there are quack doctors in the medical field, or crooked people in any other industry. Its time to address the whole problem rather than the scapegoats.
Believe me there is no competition for these cases. Its the bottom feeders that take them. My point is that there are now more bottom feeders because the valid cases are less profitable.I don't understand - if such work pays so poorly then why the competition to get it?
Are you kidding? Its because the lawyer is IN on the scam. The problem is NOT just the crooked lawyer and its NOT just the crooked doctor. No amount of reform can ever keep bad people out of a profession and you cannot reform a profession by just appealing to people's morality. The problem that needs to be addressed is the crooked evidence that the case is based on. As long as it exists there is always something for a jury to formulate an opinion on, and that means there is indeed a valid issue to be determined in the case.If lay people like the jury that the coalman was on could see through this scam, why couldn't the lawyer?
The MEDICAL field needs to do something about these accident injury practices. They are the ones that the lawyers send their clients to, to FIND something wrong with them. There are virtually no standards applied to these practices because they are private organizations. They need to be made more transparent so that they cannot get away with all of this falsified evidence. -
Then the answer is quite simple - have an accredited expert witness scheme.
Anyone wishing to be an expert witness should have their academic qualifications and experience reviewed by a medicolegal body before they are allowed to testify. Once accredited, they can only be a witness in their specialist field and no other.
Accreditiation should be reviewed every 5 or so years, with all testimony in that period also being reviewed.
- Note - This would do nothing to stop crooked lawyers from taking on cases in the hope that they would be settled out of court.Regards,
Rob -
I don't think either of them were lying. The only thing that may have crossed the line was the testimony about his carpal tunnel syndrome. The doctor was blaming it on the fact he grabbed the steering wheel. The other thing from the other side was the doctor about completely ignored the original dates from the chiropractor. Even some of the jurors were not totally convinced that the injuries he was claiming were not the result of the accident, beside the carpal tunnel syndrome the others seemd soemwhat plausible. Since we determined that he was at fault for the accident we never got that far so it was irrelevant. If we had gotten that far it appeared it would have been a battle because it seemed the lines were drwn pretty even.Originally Posted by adam
Personally I don't see how anyone can determine this, the man had a pre-existing condition that both doctors agreed was there. MRI's don't lie, it was his doctors contention this was aggravated by the accident... Now if he had immediate pain that required medical attention then I may have been convinced that it was the accident but as I mentioned above he diidn't seek medical attention until 10 days later and that was at a chiropractor. Add to that the fact this statement to the defense doctor "It started 2 to 3 weeks after the accident" & "wasn't sure if it was before or after the chiropractor"...
His lawyer must have known he was full of shit and I don't doubt his doctor knew he was full of shit about the time frames. How to reform this without hurting the person who has a legitimate claim is beyond me but at face value this particiualr case should have never went to court.
One last note, when we were leaving the jury room about 1/2 hour after making our verdict, I hear the comment from one of the jury personnel "That offends me". I'm not sure if it was directed to at us since we were in there for a very short time but id it was I would have told her this whole 3 days has offended me. It wasted my time, the courts time and everyone elses time. Something has to be done. -
One of the issues I can see there is if the testimony is directe realted to the examination of the witness. Since they wouldn't be present they would have no way of knowing. Additionally Doctors are notoriously secretive, it's like the cops. See no evil hear no evil. I know here in the state of PA it's almost impossible to find out the disciplinary record of a doctor. Neither of these two doctors would point blank say the others findings were wrong but offer a contradictory opinion instead.Originally Posted by SquirrelDip
-
That was done, the qualifications of the one doctor was borderline ridiculous. If my recollection is correct he spent more than 15 years in school or in residency. He was an Orthopedic surgeon and had even dealt with spinal injuries where paralysis was present. The other was a pain specialist. The qualifications of neither was in dispute, if anything the the surgeon was over qualified.Originally Posted by rhegedus
-
in response to demand, necsessity and success.Originally Posted by adam
http://www.opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=110008328In the summer of 2003 the Texas Legislature enacted important medical litigation reform. A voter-approved constitutional amendment, Proposition 12, followed later that year to solidify the changes. As a result, physicians are returning to the state, particularly in underserved specialties and counties. Insurance premiums to protect against frivolous lawsuits have declined dramatically, with the state's largest carrier reporting declines up to 22% and other carriers reducing premiums by an average of 13%. The number of lawsuits filed against doctors has been cut almost in half.
Prior to the successful reform effort, personal injury lawyers had put Texas doctors on the run. According to the Texas Department of Insurance, the frequency of claims was increasing at a rate of 4.6% annually--between 1996 and 2000 alone, one out of four doctors was sued.
These surging legal and insurance bills reduced patient access to health care. Texas fell to 48th out of 50 in physician manpower. There were 152 medical doctors per 100,000 citizens, well below the U.S. average of 196. Some 158 counties had no obstetrician. Good, competent doctors were closing their doors, unable to afford the cost of insurance.
Other industry players suffered as well. Hospital premiums to protect against the onslaught of lawsuits more than doubled between 2000 and 2003. From 1999 to 2002, the annual per-bed cost of litigation-protection insurance in nursing homes increased from $250 to $5,000--a factor of 20! Texas seniors were being displaced and deprived of care, as nursing homes closed, unable to afford the cost of escalating insurance premiums.
At the core of House Bill 4, led with remarkable courage and dedication by state Rep. Joe Nixon and state Sen. Jane Nelson, was a hard $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages for all physicians, with a separate $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages payable by hospitals and other providers. The law keeps doctors, hospitals and nursing homes liable for all economic damages assessed by a jury. HB 4 was modeled on California's successful 1975 Micra law, still on the books, keeping litigation-related costs under control and allowing competent doctors and hospitals to continue providing care.
So what has happened since September of 2003, when the new law went into effect? After years of losing doctors, Texas has added nearly 4,000 since passage of Proposition 12, including 127 orthopedic surgeons, almost 300 anesthesiologists, over 200 emergency room physicians, 146 new obstetricians, 58 neurologists and 24 neurosurgeons. The Texas Medical Board is anticipating some 4,000 applicants for new physician licenses this year alone--double last year's numbers, and 30% more than the greatest growth year ever.
The threat of lawsuits has been a particular barrier to attracting and retaining pediatric specialists. Since 2003, Texas has gained 20 pediatric cardiologists, 14 pediatric oncologists, almost 50 new perinatologists (obstetricians specializing in high-risk pregnancies), 10 pediatric surgeons and 8 new pediatric endocrinologists.
Medically underserved counties in Texas are benefiting as well. Jefferson, Webb and Victoria Counties, as well as the counties of Cameron and Hidalgo in the Rio Grande Valley, have all experienced an influx of physicians. Additionally, the market for insurance to protect health-care providers against the cost of lawsuits has become more robust and competitive. In 2002 there were only four companies writing policies. Today that number has more than tripled. And all of these trends are expected to continue.
the legal profession remains possibly the least governed in the country.
lawyers oppose? what would be the odds??Originally Posted by adam
so? doctors are sued for malpractice by 1 in four. lawyers face a malpractice suit how often? 50% of each judgement produces a loser. none of those involve malpractice?Originally Posted by "adfam"
and that doesn't even address the mess like california's unemployment and disability insurance fraud.
yes there are bad apples everywhere. yes they need to be cleaned up. the april 10 issue of forbes details how lawyers are raking in millions upon millions in the phen-phen class action. they set up questionable docs in makeshift clinics and scan them. the docs report heart damage. the patient makes a few bucks. the doc makes quite a bit. and the lawyer makes millions. the worst part? most of the patients have no damage. but now they believe they do. read it at your library. (or purchase from the forbes website-http://www.forbes.com/archive/archive_index.jhtml?fullMagName=Forbes+Magazine&ma gVolume=&magIssue=07&magDate=04/10/2006 -
enstg8er what exactly is your point? We aren't talking about medical malpractice suits we're talking about personal injury suits.
I don't care if you want to bash lawyers, cause that is most definitely all you are doing, and I think its obvious that I never said the legal profession doesn't have a significant hand in these frivolous PI suits. But looking at your post you clearly don't follow tort reform and you don't seem to care about understanding the problem, you're just content to dish out the blame where you think its due. In these scams the lawyer, doctor, and client are all EQUALLY to blame. But no amount of tort reform can keep the cases out of the courthouse, the problem needs to be addressed at the source, or at least closer to it. You can recognize and understand this and still keep your hate for lawyers. -
I guess I need to explain my position a little more clearly. Whether you agree with tort reform or not, it is a fact that it is something that progressed very quickly. Pretty much every state has picked up on it and passed various caps on damages and generally altered the law to favor the defendant over the plaintiff. Tort reform has generally been favored by the majority of Americans, so its no wonder that legislators have been content to ride that wave for a while now. But NOW, looking back, it is becoming apparant to legal minds (note this does not just mean lawyers, it means economists, statisticians, and the very politicians who passed the tort reforms) that this majority support for tort reform was based on the general public's misconceptions about the legal system.
In virtually every study done the majority of Americans believe that 1) punitive damages are awarded too frequently and are too high, 2) that damages awarded are increasing, 3) that the jury system favors the plaintiff and results in windfalls, and 4) that the majority of tort claims are an attempt to coerce money out of large businesses.
But the Department of Justice's statistics consistently show the exact opposite. Punitive damages are only awarded in a little over 3% of cases and the median award is under $40,000. The average American thinks the number is closer to $250,000 and a significant amount believe its over 1 million! Damages are not increasing they have in fact decreased by 47% over the last 10 years. Juries actually are less likely to find in favor of a Tort plaintiff than a judge, and they are far less likely to award punitive damages. And finally, the vast majority of tort claims are filed against individuals not businesses.
So my point is that tort reform has been aimed at pleasing the masses rather than actually addressing the problems in tort law. Its time to rethink things because there is very little room left to reform things before the entire system is rendered useless. A doctor who will willingly sell a diagnosis is not necessarily any better or worse than the lawyer who hires him/her. But a PI suit is predicated on MEDICAL evidence so if you want to cut down on frivilous PI suits you need to go after the ones doing the falsifying. -
i wasn't trying to light your fire, adam. and i bear no "hatred" towards lawyers. i, for the most part agree with-
noting-In these scams the lawyer, doctor, and client are all EQUALLY to blame.yes there are bad apples everywhere.sorry. i was mislead into the confusion by this from the article-Originally Posted by adam
Prior to the successful reform effort, personal injury lawyers had put Texas doctors on the run.perhaps so. returning to the article-Originally Posted by adam
i'm not advocating a rate of zero. but most everyone (including candidate john edwards) sees a need to clean up the system.The number of lawsuits filed against doctors has been cut almost in half.
agreed. a loser pays system would go a long way addressing this.Originally Posted by adam
yes everyone involved contributes to the problem. but in the end, the lawyers represent the law. they get paid for legal advice and representation. if the case is dubious they should offer that advice and move on. few claimants get inside a courtroom without a lawyer.
you should't be so quick to dismiss lawyer criticism as "lawyer hate". there is no reason lawyers should be above scrutiny and criticism. they're grown men and make very good money in a rough and tumble environment. they can take it....Originally Posted by adam -
With all due respect, its clear that you didn't even get the jist of what I was saying. Whether its, "in the end," in the beginning or every step along the way of course the responsibility lies with the lawyer to refuse or stop a frivilous lawsuit. I never said different. But for the last time, this is not an issue of morality. We are talking about those who do this by choice and know full well its wrong. The question is not who is to blame, its how to prevent it and that would simply be better accomplished by tightening regulations on accident injury medical practices rather than lawyers, again and again beyond what has already been done. Oh yea, a loser pays system would help alot too, but there are many downsides to that as well. There is no perfect legal system.Originally Posted by enstg8er
And you are repeatedly taking that article horribly out of context each time you quote it in this thread. Just because tort reform in the medical malpractice arena (I am in favor of such reform) cuts down on lawsuits, frivolous or otherwise, filed AGAINST DOCTORS (caps always decrease litigation, but that doesn't necessarily mean less frivilous lawsuits) that has absolutely no bearing on the effect of tort reform in the personal injury arena, and whether it cuts down on frivilous lawsuits GENERALLY. You could give doctors complete immunity from malpractice suits but it wouldn't make one lick of a difference in personal injury cases like the one thecoalman is complaining about. Think about it. -
Originally Posted by thecoalman
-
i was posting about the tort mess in general and not the coalman case specifically. sorry for the threadjack.You could give doctors complete immunity from malpractice suits but it wouldn't make one lick of a difference in personal injury cases like the one thecoalman is complaining about. Think about it.
-
Originally Posted by enstg8eri was posting about the tort mess in general and not the coalman case specifically. sorry for the threadjack.
I'm suing... :P
Quote
Similar Threads
-
Could kinnect or move lead to more pc ports of classic mouse adventure game
By yoda313 in forum Off topicReplies: 0Last Post: 22nd Oct 2010, 10:17 -
How To: Choose Your Own Adventure Film?
By morari in forum Authoring (DVD)Replies: 2Last Post: 3rd Mar 2010, 23:18