Waupun Woman Gets $8.4 Million in Malpractice Suit (WI)

WISCNews.com ^ | February 3, 2006 | David Wahlberg

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Having NO CAPS on payouts on malpractice cases result in higher premiums for us all, no doctors, and the doctors that DO hang on will have higher prices for their services to cover their malpractice insurance.

This is the third or fourth huge award now, just since Governor Doyle vetoed this in December. (Remember, he's a LAWYER first, and our Governor last.)

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"Daily Doyle" Ping.

[Roverman2K]

Hate to say it, but its cheaper for them to die and pay.

[TheDon]

You just never want to be in a position where you win a large malpractice suit.

[rzeznikj at stout]

This is sick.

It really begs the question: Who bought Doyle's action on this?

<sarc>Surely it couldn't be the trial lawyers </sarc>

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Daniel Rottier can now afford the landscaping at his Maple Bluff mansion.

[cpprfld]

No, I think that the reason he vetoed the legislation is because the doctors haven't given enough to his campaign.

[GovernmentShrinker]

If her pre-surgery condition was so bad, it's virtually certain that she would have had to switch to tube-feeding fairly soon anyway.

[Froufrou]

Her symptoms "were worsened as a result of the surgery but not as a result of anything done wrong," Schultz said.

Did it stipulate anywhere in this piece that the nerves being cut to the stomach and small intestine were part of the procedure? If so, this is outrageous. If it's not part of the surgery, then he screwed up and should pay. If you don't like the caps, vote to change them.

[Larry Lucido]

4 million in economic damages IS "paying." It's that last 4 million in "pain and suffering" that is at contest, and which you and I pay through increased medical fees.

[Larry Lucido]

And until they invent the perfect doctor, even the good ones can screw up. Medical care has risks as well as benefits. It's a shame when the best ones say "screw it" and leave the practice altogether, especially when you eventually need one.

[Froufrou]

I understand and agree. And with your other post too, about good doctors saying 'screw it' and leaving.

But she's only 33. That's got to mean that her lifespan has been significantly shortened. She won't make 50 years on a feeding tube, by any means.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"If you don't like the caps, vote to change them."

We do. Our socialist Governor keeps vetoing the caps.

The point here isn't this particular woman's "suffering." The point is that having no caps on what people can be paid in malpractice cases is going to bite us all in the @ss. Because they could finagle it, she got NINE TIMES the money she would've gotten had we had a cap on her settlement. Now...do you really think her lawyers didn't know that? Did you know that our Governor IS a lawyer? He was our DA before he ran for Governor.

What does your state do? Do you have caps on malpractice settlements? Have you even thought about it? Do you have decent doctors in your state? Do you want to keep them?

Think a little further down the line on this, and don't get stuck on this one woman's case. This is the 3rd or 4th HUGE settlement paid out since Doyle vetoed the bill to keep the caps on settlements in December.

It's a money-grubbing lawyer free for all in Wisconsin, now. Eventually, no doctors are going to be able to practice here at all, and will go to other states that are more business-friendly. And your doctor, if s/he's a good one, runs their practice as a business with good customer service and professionalism. Yes, doctors are human and mistakes happen, but why cripple them right out of the chute with huge increases in their malpractice insurance, and why penalize the rest of we "consumers" with higher rates on everything from an asprin to major surgery while the miniscule number of people that are legitimately hurt each year by doctors reap millions of dollars for themselves and their laywers?

Keep this in mind: John Edwards (D) made his fortune as a malpractice lawyer. 'Nuff said.

[Bubba M. Aurelius]

Huepenbecker might have done more than read a patient's tests before operating. There is a common concept that current medical practice often fails to acknowledge, know thy patient's medical history and thoroughly read the attending physician's notes. These little steps reduce medical misadventures by providing a knowledge base to medical mechanic. The penalty for lack of knowledge in medicine is litigation. The penalty for lack of knowledge of the law is time spent in the penalty box and a severe fine.

Don't howl about the damages, go to the source of the problem and nail the physician for malfeasance. That will do more to lower the issues of tort costs than all of the capitations would achieve. The salubrious benefit would be more attentive health care that focuses upon quality rather quicker patient throughput and mediocre outcomes.

[Iris7]

Some historians say that until 1910 you were better off in any situation NOT going to a doctor or to a hospital.

By 1940 the situation was improved but not vastly so, in my opinion. Abdominal surgery was improved considerably aver 1910 for some procedures. Forceps deliveries were common with terrible results in those days, though, for instance.

Today a good surgical result is still very much a matter of knowing what you, the patient, are doing. "Iatrogenic" disorders are still very much here today.

The patient's situation is very much worse in "single payer health systems" as one would expect. Of course Britain and Canada have fewer questionable surgeries done than in the USA. Triage works out that way.

People get in a miserable state and go to physician after physician looking for relief. They finally find a surgeon who will say "Perhaps I can help." The bill for a quarter million or so is paid by someone else. If the surgeries turn out unhappily, that is, not like on television, then major lawsuits and fantastically wealthy lawyers result.

Have been seeing a huge increase in very expensive, difficult and not really necessary surgeries these days.

[spunkets]

"Huepenbecker's attorney, Bruce Schultz, agreed that Greenfield had a "very disappointing outcome." But it wasn't the result of negligence, he said."

LOL! Doc Huepenbecker is a clutz.

"Her symptoms "were worsened as a result of the surgery but not as a result of anything done wrong," Schultz said."

LOL, talk about unerstatements!

"the doctors that DO hang on will have higher prices for their services to cover their malpractice insurance."

These docs should have their results posted somewhere, so that folks could review them. I'm sure there were cases this guy had handled that would give the patient warning. Would you want this clutz to work on you?

It seems reasonable to limit the noneconomic damages to ~500k. In this case though, the economic damages don't look out of line.

[CGTRWK]

We pay the first 4 million too. Any wonder everything related to healthcare is so unaffordable?

[Mike-o-Matic]

"ARRGH!!! DOYLE!" ping.

[Watery Tart]

RULE #1: Vote this jack@$$ out of office.

RULE #2: Stay away from St. Mary's.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"It seems reasonable to limit the noneconomic damages to ~500k. In this case though, the economic damages don't look out of line."

Read my other posts. This problem goes BEYOND what this one, particular woman's lawyer snagged for her. I don't begrudge her a dime, if she's truly been hurt by a doctor. The problem is that if these things aren't capped, it hurts all consumers of health care in the long run. I'm not sure if you're in Wisconsin or not, but if not, it could happen in your state, too, and your doctors will go elsewhere. Right now, in rural Wisconsin, most people are THREE HOURS from a doctor. I'm sure it's worse in other, poorer states.

And you can look up doctors that have been charged with malpractice to protect yourself:

http://www.floridamalpractice.com/linksotherstatebds.htm