Re: FRI Highest Malpractice Award in Michigan History -- REPLY
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Thu May 31 16:52:01 2001
Dean -
it's not about the size of the judgement - outrageous tho it may be -
it's about dealing with a system which ignores medicine in favor of a
good dog and pony show.
when i talked with the legislators in albany ny, one assemblyman hit the
nail squarely on the head - "You guys should form a union."
art
At Thu, 31 May 2001, Dean Huffman wrote:
>
>.
>
>There is a system in Michigan tort law called the high-low system. Under
>the system, litigants can agree on a high and a low for monetary damages.
>Whether or not this is a good system, it at least provides for some general
>protection for each party. (Protection, I suspect, especially for
>plaintiff's attorney.) The plaintiff and defendant might agree before trial
>that they will accept the jury award, but if the jury award exceeds their
>limits, the limits will hold. For example, they might agree that in no case
>will the award be less than, say 100,000 nor more than, say, 1,500,000,
>irrespective of what the jury does. If such a system were in place for this
>case, then the actual payment might be considerably less than what the jury
>awarded.
>
>In any event, this case will probably be appealed and reduced, either by
>the appellate court, or by an agreement between the parties to the case.
>Parties, again especially the plaintiff's attorney, are often willing to
>settle for a predetermined amount rather than risk what the jury, or the
>appeals court, will do.
>
>I do not know who the parties to the suit are. If the physician is the only
>defendant, it is unlikely that the award would ever be paid, even if upheld
>on appeal. He (she) probably does not have that much money or insurance.
>
>In all probability the case will be reduced on appeal, settled post
>judgement and pre appeal, or end up in bankruptcy court.
>
>- - - -
>
>At 01:26 PM 5/31/01 -0500, you wrote:
>>to whit i simply suggest -
>>
>>Look for
>>The Union Label.
>>
>>art
>>
>>At Thu, 31 May 2001, Harrison Sheld wrote:
>> >
>> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
>> x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
>> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> >
>> >Yes. Well the juries like to send messages with these 8 figure awards.
>> In this
>> >case, I am not sure if the message they thought they sent is the message we
>> >received. The message from the award, and all such exorbitant awards is:
>> Only a
>> >darn fool practices obstetrics these days. What with increasing government
>> >generated paperwork and their regulations, increasing malpractice insurance
>> >premiums (here in Nevada the State Insurance Commission just approved
>> increases
>> >in premiums of 100%, 90% and 35% for the three largest carriers), increasing
>> >malpractice awards, and decreasing managed care reimbursements, the only
>> >accoucheurs that will be left are paupers with a terminal disease.
>> >
>> >DoctorJoe@aol.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> In a message dated 5/30/01 6:12:34 PM, marilyncnm@hotmail.com writes:
>> >>
>> >> << In what is believed to be the largest medical malpractice verdict in
>> >> Michigan history, Washtenaw County last week awarded Dawn Goll with $23
>> >> million for the "inexplicable" absence of her obstetrician during the
>> birth
>> >> of her fourth child, who has brain damage due to complications during
>> labor,
>> >> the Detroit News reports. Goll had arranged for obstetrician Lawrence
>> >> Schrock to "personally oversee" the birth of the child, Sierra, to help
>> >> prevent complications that caused her third child to be born with mild
>> brain
>> >> damage. However, Schrock missed the birth, and Sierra also suffered
>> >> permanent brain damage. >>
>> >>
>> >> Okay... now we need to come up with a tight, concise (is that redundant?)
>> >> definition of a new medical-malpractice-obstetrical term: "SCHROCKed". I'm
>> >> just not sure if we should make it "condition of a doctor who gets
>> sued for
>> >> missing delivery" or "damage to a baby due to lack of birth attendant" or
>> >> "giving lots of money in a case with genetic damage and blaming it on
>> someone
>> >> else" or what... Any ideas?
>> >>
>> >> Joe P.
>>
>>--
>>art fougner, md
>>
>>A series of 1000 cases begins with but a single anecdote.
--
art fougner, md
A series of 1000 cases begins with but a single anecdote.
