Posted on 01/01/2003 6:49:29 AM PST by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
WEIRTON, W.Va. (AP) - As he stood in a hallway at Weirton Medical Center, Dr. Jayapal Reddy was undecided about whether he would join a mass walkout to protest skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums. But if he does join dozens of fellow surgeons in a strike starting Wednesday, he said it won't be because he is greedy. Reddy, who drives a Subaru with 110,000 miles, said with the rising insurance costs, he must earn $250,000 before seeing $1 in profit.
Reddy is one of dozens of surgeons at four northern West Virginia hospitals who may stop reporting for duty, forcing most elective and trauma surgeries to be diverted to hospitals in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Morgantown. Meanwhile in Pennsylvania, surgeons around the state backed off their threat to close their practices Wednesday just hours before they were scheduled to walk off the job. Strike plans were canceled after Gov.-elect Ed Rendell promised to fight for $220 million in aid for doctors this year. The aid offer is tentative one.
Rendell, a Democrat, doesn't take office for another three weeks and even though he still must persuade a Republican-controlled Legislature to accept his plan, there were signs that the offer had averted a large-scale work stoppage. "We are going to go back to work," said Margo Opsasnick, chief executive at Delta Medix, one of several Scranton surgical groups that had planned to close Jan. 1 because of high insurance costs.
"We are going to take Mr. Rendell's offer as one of good faith, and keep seeing patients," she said Tuesday. Other physician groups around the state followed suit. Scranton's biggest hospital, Community Medical Center, notified state officials Tuesday that its neurosurgeons had also agreed to keep working, avoiding a planned closure of northeast Pennsylvania's only trauma center. "It feels like a huge weight has been lifted off our shoulders," said hospital spokeswoman Jane Gaul.
No such relief came to surgeons in West Virginia. They said they wanted lawmakers to get their message that the state has created a hostile working environment, and doctors are ready to leave. "I'm under contractual obligation to this hospital until September," Reddy said. "I'm already looking around." Dr. Jeffrey Wilps and other surgeons met for more than an hour Tuesday with state insurance officials and concluded, "there's no quick fix to this." "They're just trying to pacify the physicians now. They don't realize it's come to an acute crisis situation," Wilps said. "West Virginia is chasing the doctors - and the businesses in general - out of the state."
Insurance and Retirement Services Director Tom Susman said he tried to head off the strike but found surgeons reluctant to wait for legislative solutions. He returned to Charleston to help the administration finalize contingency plans, which could include rotating doctors from other parts of the state. Lawmakers convene Jan. 8 in Charleston, but surgeons in Weirton said Susman asked them to postpone their walkout until Feb. 1, a delay several found unacceptable. "If we stay silent until Feb. 1, and nothing happens, then they pass us by for another year," said Dr. Samuel Licata, who plans to join the walkout by taking a leave of absence beginning Jan. 6.
Licata, a board-certified general surgeon for seven years, has seen his annual premiums soar from $18,000 to $58,000 without a single lawsuit filed against him. He said surgeons have three critical needs: affordable malpractice insurance; laws that make it harder to sue and cap damage awards; and a reduction in the provider tax, which charges doctors 2 percent of their gross income. "People don't understand. Yes, doctors do make a lot of money. But this isn't about us trying to make more money," Licata said. "It's about trying to keep our heads above water."
LOL! Did you go to Harding?
All well and good. Unless the structure of these arrangements is being systematically abused by one party to the social compact.
Whatever happened to the light plane industry, anyway...???
Give three specific cases. We have some sorry lawyers around here and I've never heard of one being sued for malpractice. In fact, it's impossible to get one lawyer to talk about suing another.
What a great idea. Let's start a movement to socialize the legal system. Why should only the rich be able to afford a good lawyer? Don't we all have a legal right to good representation regardless of our ability to pay? Conservative commentators should challenge liberals with this regularly. If socialized medicine is a good thing, then why not socialized justice? Some ambititious idiot liberal will take up the cause creating the perfect wedge issue. The trial lawyers would go beserk.
Stone v. Satriana, 41 P.3d 705 (Colo. 02/25/2002)
Roberts v. Holland & Hart, 857 P.2d 492 (Colo.App. 01/28/1993)
Smith v. Mehaffy, 30 P.3d 727 (Colo.App. 11/09/2000)
These are just three that are Appellate decisions in Colorado. There are many, many actions that do not make it to published appellate judgments. I usually don't bother with any thing except appellate judgments as they do not become (for the most part) case law. I didn't sort these out as to who won or lost since you only asked for three specific cases involving legal malpractice.
We have some sorry lawyers around here and I've never heard of one being sued for malpractice.
What State are you in and maybe I can find a few cases from your State? Or Federal cases? If you have some specific action in mind, maybe I could find a few that might be related to your situation (but it could take time since I would have to read the whole decision to try to figure it out and I don't have much time to spend in a law library). For your interest only, of course, not for legal advice.
You probably haven't considered this but: The confiscation of the money and property, without any charges or convictions, that is used in the WOD is intended to deprive the defendant (alleged drug dealer/posessor) of competant legal representation by forcing him to rely on public defenders and bottom of the barrel attorneys. Socializing the legal system could, potentially, destroy this very valuable weapon in the War on Drugs.
If your surgeons in PA go, the ERs will quickly follow suit because the staff in the ERs don't want to face catastrophes without surgical backup.
You said that "loser pays" would be useless because the plaintiff's lawyer who loses makes no money if he loses, anyway. So why bother? That was very, very cute.
The point is, (as if you didn't know, and butter wouldn't melt in your mouth) a defendant abused by this lawyer can take his expenses (and maybe something more punative!) out of the plaintiff's hide. Or try to take it out of the Gamblin' Man atty. The plaintiff's lawyer would then know that maybe he risks more than his time when he engages in his courtroom extortion.
Lawyers want everyone to cry over plaintiffs only when the defendants are able to pay, and pretend to have the great big hearts full of compassion. Find some poor injured person with no deep pockets to pick, and the lawyers could care less.
I know of a little girl who wanted to explain her situation to a judge (you know, one of those lawyers in evening black). The law clearly stated she had a say in her custody, and she waited months for her chance. Judge forbid her to speak, threatened her with foster care if she persisted. Now her grades are tanked, she's run away once, and has to face Mommy's Boyfriends. Interested in her case? Afraid there's no one to sue. The judge is protected by LAW from civil action, thanks to the legislative foresight of many lawyers seeing to his protection.
So type that on your keyboard and engage it.
Another version of "loser pays" are frivolous pleading sanctions.
Lawyers are just the canaries in the coal mine, verdict wise. Remember, juries award verdicts.
Actually, those are your words, not mine. You said that in this post, not I.
But ... this isn't true? Why not? Do you understand what taking a case on contingency means to the attorney?
The point is, (as if you didn't know, and butter wouldn't melt in your mouth) a defendant abused by this lawyer can take his expenses (and maybe something more punative!) out of the plaintiff's hide.
I'm assuming that you mean legally, not physically (which would put you in jail and give that losing plaintiff a real shot at punitive damages in a suit under any system).
To begin with, the defendant isn't being "abused" by the lawyer. He is being "abused" by the plaintiff. The attorney is simply presenting the plaintiffs case. The attorney representing this plaintiff is required to provide competant representation and what you are calling 'abuse' may be that representation. An attorney who does not do this and causes the client substantial legal damage by failing to do so, may end up being sanctioined by the BAR or Courts and involved in a malpractice suit as well.
Go back to the post you originated from (#30) and read where I said "A plaintiff that loses makes nothing in damage awards. An indigent plaintif that loses under the current system will get nothing. An indigent plaintiff that loses under a loser pays system will still get nothong and, being indigent, will pay nothing. You, of course, will probably be required to post twenty or thirty thousand up front to bring a justified suit. Are you, or the indigent, more likely to sufer consequences of loser pays?" (paragraph three). Do you not understand this? Let me try to explain it: You are financially well off and get sued for a million dollars. In the end after a hundred grand in legal costs you win. The plaintif against whom you win has a net worth of about 30,000 and it is all in vehicles or property that falls below the value that can be liqidated for bankruptcy (check the laws in your state to find out what the various actual values are. Sometimes they are quite high, sometimes not). You try to sieze his salary (assuming he has one) and he just delcares bankruptcy. So ... How gonna collect? And how is this 'loser pays' system any different for you than the current system?
the only ones that will suffer the loss of right to seek remedy in court are the working class people who are financially and personally responsible. Not the indigent or welfare type that claim they are too fat because you sold them fattening food. Not the greedy going out looking for someone to rob. Not the vengeful out to hurt someone they hate or disagree with (these types usually aren't personally or financially responsible people). Just you, the person who has been wronged and has a great and just case but no 20 or 30 thousand to lay down up front. You are going to have to learn to just bend over and take it because you won't be able to afford to do anything about it.
Or try to take it out of the Gamblin' Man atty. The plaintiff's lawyer would then know that maybe he risks more than his time when he engages in his courtroom extortion.
You could possibly do this in rare instances where you could prove both maliciousness and ethical violation on the part of the attorney (not the plaintiff). But you can do that now. The outcome is so unlikely to be in your favor that you would have to be indigent (free legal help) or have enough money that you didn't mind losing it to make a point. This is like going after a state prosecutor for mailcious prosecution ... possible but not likely to succed. And, of course, when you lost you would also be responsible for the legal fees of your opponent under loser pays. How is this an improvementover the current system?
Interested in her case?
Yes, I am! Could you please cite the case? Possibly post the pertinent transcripts? I would be interested in reading it. Why no Guardian ad litem in this case? and why no appeal? And, BTW, there are often no protections for a judge against maliciousness, like prosecutors. And, if what you say is accurate, there are usually other sanctions that can be sought that are worse for the judge than a suit.
A frequent downfall of well meaning Freeper types. One thing to guard against at all costs, if filing a lawsuit which is then declared frivolous. And frivolous doesn't always mean what people think it means.
Not sure what you mean here, but I would try the o/j route before I'd count on recovery for frivolous pleading.
One thing to guard against at all costs, if filing a lawsuit which is then declared frivolous. And frivolous doesn't always mean what people think it means.
Many Florida judges are taking a very broad view of what frivolous means. If freepers think they're annoyed at the lame cases that actually make the papers, they should think about how ornery judges get from having their dockets filled with bogus disputes. The system has some powerful built in protections in the form of annoyed judges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.