Why Bush is wrong on Tort Reform.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

My mom's friend was just starting out on a promising career path. She was a brilliant physicist and had just received a prestigious job offer at Los Alamos. She had already been published and was making a name for herself. She was never particularly "beautiful" but she met a man she thought her soulmate and they were married very happily. Then she got pregnant. Everyone was happy, her life was going wonderfully.

She died shortly after givinig birth due to a Doctor error. When her husband researched this doctor he found that THREE other women had also died in the same way from this doctor. He filed suit. The hospital fired the doctor and this doctor filed suit and won her job back. Now this man is trying to win a lawsuit against her and the hospital for his wife's death. Bush can kiss my ass. That woman had already been guilty of malpractice 3 times. She had suits filed against her and settled. The hospital never notified Gwen or her husband. And this woman is still practicing now because she sued and got her job back.

[LiviaOlivia]

1. self deleted

after originator edit

[SemiCharmedQuark]

2. I forgot the "don't" Grrr..thanks.

On Edit, ok, we need SOME Tort Reform, but not anywhere near the extent Bush is saying. I meant to say, Bush's assertions on ambulance chasers is crap and that we don't need the kind of Tort reform he's talking about.

[LiviaOlivia]

3. Thanks!

Best wishes and keep fighting!!

[plcdude]

4. and Tort reform

has nothing to do with rising costs of health and medical insurance as well as malpractice insurance and the number of doctors leaving practice. Tort reform is for the insurance companies period.

[Wapsie B]

5. I for one believe

that physician's disciplinary records need to be made public, not hidden away like gold bars in Ft. Knox. How many people have to die before a physician is stripped of their license?
Tort reform is just another way to screw the lower classes in this country. A single individual harmed by a corporation should be able to bring that corporation to its knees. Make senior management and boards of directors personally liable for these suits.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. It makes me sick that someone could die because of this doctor

Wasn't there a fight awhile back where doctors were fighting to keep their records hidden?

[olddem43]

7. Yes, this is very important - it would lower health care costs 1%.

Like that is worth giving up your rights.

[agingdem]

8. Face it...

Bush thinks tort is a jelly-filled roll.

[dr.strangelove]

9. Questions

I'm not sure what effect Tort reform would have on this case. The term "tort reform" (TR) refers to attempts to alter the current civil judicial recovery system. If you go through the different types of TR, I don't think any really effect the suit your mom's friend's husband has.

The primary component of TR is a cap on non-economic damages. These are often referred to as pain and suffering damages. Other than Colorado, I don't know of any TR which limits economic damages (which are money lost due to the malpractice).

Since this woman was a brilliant physicist with a prestigious job at Los Alamos (or an offer to begin work there), her income and her expected future income (which I would expect to be in excess of $100,000 per year) would not be limited by TR. Also any additional medical costs that were incurred after the birth would be recoverable. Also the cost for home care for the infant now that the father either has to work or obtain help to replace the mother is recoverable. Assuming the woman was in her 30s-early 40s, this case should easily be worth 5-6 million in economic damages alone, and possibly more. Whether or not there is insurance or assets available for that judgment is another issue.

The TR damage cap would limit the non-economic damages. These pain and suffering awards are difficult to predict or evaluate. What is the pain and suffering for losing a mother or a wife worth? Historically, jury awards for these damages have been VERY varied.
Some juries do not give a tremendous amount of money for these losses. I once had a jury award $40,000 for pain and suffering to the parents of a still born infant when there was clear negligence by the hospital. This jury felt that the pain and suffering for losing a child was worth $40,000. I thought it was a little low, but thats what the jury held. I have seen cases at both extremes. We once had a clear malpractice case result in a $1 award of pain and suffering and I have seen awards in the millions. Most fall in between these extremes.

We had a similar case last year in San Fran where the jury awarded the spouse and children $150,000 in non-economic damages (they have a $250,000 cap there, but the jury never reached the cap). (juries don't even know about the cap, unless, as is often the case, a lawyer or an insurance worker is on the jury).

What your post seems to be very upset at is the hospital's alleged negligence for not telling the mother or her spouse about the doctor's history of negligence. I know of no TR which will in any way limit this type of suit. There are certainly factual and legal issues present. Usually the hospital's don't employ the OB-GYNs that perform non-emergent deliveries. If this doctor was sought out on the patient's own and she had admitting privileges at the hospital, I don't see why the hospital should have any obligations to notify the patients of their own doctor's history. If the hospital didn't set the patient up with the doctor, it seems that the choice was the patient's.

If the patient went in for an emergency procedure an a hospital attending OB-GYN performed the procedure, there may be a claim for negligent credentialing, but that is fairly difficult as well.

There certainly may have been malpractice on the part of a hospital employee, and I'm sure the spouse's lawyer will look at the nursing records, the fetal monitoring strips and the delivery notes to determine what was done wrong.

I just don't think any state TR or the proposed federal TR would in any way effect this type of claim.

There are HUGE problems with TR, mostly taking the valuation out of the hands of a jury and placing it in the hands of the legislature. Some think a constitutional amendment is needed to do this. I disagree and think some TR is needed to keep doctors in practice. If it costs $500,000 annually to buy malpractice insurance and you only take in $600,000, and you have $100,000 in overhead (rent, employee salaries and benefits, supplies) why would anyone want to work for free. We need to control insurance premiums, and TR has proven to work in California and Colorado. It is looking like insurance costs are lower in Texas since last year's TR, but its too soon to tell there.

Anyway, I think TR is needed to some degree, but I don't think even the most extreme TR would hurt your mom's friend. I am sorry for their loss and I hope that the lawsuit offers them some measure of closure and comfort.