-VISIT OUR OTHER FORUMS- OB-GYN-L Ultrasound Ultrasound History Fibroid Forum Physicians-in-Training Tech Talk OBSTET-L (portuguese) OBGIN-L (spanish) Nursing

Re: OB: Why is there litigation for persistent nerve injury From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com) Mon Apr 27 08:20:47 1998 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: Geffrey H. Klein, MD: "Re: At the risk of re-igniting the Oprah discussion . . ." Previous message: Howard Gelfand: "Re: At the risk of re-igniting the Oprah discussion . . ." In reply to: Geffrey H. Klein, MD: "Re: OB: Why is there litigation for persistent nerve injury" Next in thread: Bernard Cristalli: "Re: OB: Why is there litigation for persistent nerve injury after" welcome to reality, Geff. now you know the sad truth of the sword of damocles which hangs over the heads of all practitioners in the US. once you get into a courtroom, it's definitely NOT about science anymore. and all the evidence-based studies and protocols often wither in the face of the stricken plaintiff represented by a sharp attorney and assisted by a legion of expert witnesses, many of whom are quite prominent in ACOG. just look around - you know them. to return to the topic, once in a courtroom it's not about truth - it's about FAULT and assigning blame. and once the case is in the hands of a jury - you never know. btw one thing is for certain - until tort reform is a reality, medical costs in this country will NEVER be controlled - not by government edict or by managed care. sorry but i had to get my full $0.02 worth. art At Sun, 26 Apr 1998, Geffrey H. Klein, MD wrote: > >On 4/25/98, RCSH wrote this: > >Q> You know the answer to that as well as I do - there does not have to be a >Q> scientifically (or medically) documented relationship. Suits are filed all >Q> the time for causally unrelated events, in hopes that some minimal perception >Q> of negligence may be drawn out, or that a jury is sympathetic to the >Q> plaintiff. >Q> >Q> Scientific reality has nothing to do with this - its form of gambling, with >Q> good odds for wining for the plaintiff (and the lawyer). I can quote you a >Q> whole list of cases where the defendant doctor was supported by many >Q> authorities, textbooks, other doctors, and still lost the case. Go figure. > >I will not argue that all tort for medical mistakes is incorrect. It serves a function. However, there is something basically wrong with a doc having to endure litigation when (s)he is merely a victim of chance. This burden is unfair and may pursuade those with the talent to practice medicine to turn elsewhere for a career. The greater good is not served by this type of litigation.. Perhaps I am naive.. > >-- >---------------------------------- >Geffrey H. Klein, MD >---------------------------------- >gklein@bcm.tmc.edu >---------------------------------- >List-owner OB-GYN-L > -- art fougner, md SonoScan/Genetic Sciences forest hills, ny evsono@pipeline.com Next message: Geffrey H. Klein, MD: "Re: At the risk of re-igniting the Oprah discussion . . ." Previous message: Howard Gelfand: "Re: At the risk of re-igniting the Oprah discussion . . ." In reply to: Geffrey H. Klein, MD: "Re: OB: Why is there litigation for persistent nerve injury" Next in thread: Bernard Cristalli: "Re: OB: Why is there litigation for persistent nerve injury after"

Return to

Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Wed Dec 2 05:23:59 2009

The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.