Yes, lets all admit we make mistakes so that the patient can run off to ambulance chasers like Lindsay Rakers so we can go thru years of litigation hell so that Rakers can make a fast buck. But when Lindsay mistakenly sues a doc for malpractice wasting his time, Lindsay should have immunity from a countersuit from the doctor because she had "good intentions" and frivolous malpractice suits are just a "legal complication."

I have serious questions how anyone give an exact percentage of the number of times medical mistakes are made and are not reported to the patient. Face it, most medical mistakes have no effect on patient outcome, some mistakes affect patient outcome and neither the doc or the patient realizes the mistake.So saying 20% of mistakes are not reported is specious. Besides, with the current malpractice enviornment, after all the work docs put into their career no one wants to commit career suicide. We need a better system which means getting rid of the legal system and goint to medical courts!

Bello - -you make a fast buck by filing a frivolous lawsuit and then settling for $10,000 - $20,000 after a couple of months. You extort money from the insurance companies and docs that way because the litigation system is too expensive to go thru. That is why, at trial plaintiff lawyers lose 80% of the time because they didn't have a case to begin with and the docs and insurance companies pay them off to get out of future litgation expenses.

Bill Eadie: I read the ABC article, and the author was the Inspector General of HHS. A Democratic operative who states that 80% of mistakes at hospitals are "unreported". It further states that 61% of the "mistakes" were not even recognized by the staff as mistakes. So you put bandage on someone with paper tape and they get a mild skin rash because of an allergy to the paper tape and that is a horrible mistake? This report does not break out those mistakes and therefore is useless propaganda produced for gullible plaintiff attorneys.

Bello: Frivolous lawsuits often go all the way to court where they are rejected by the jury and then appealed by the plaintiff attorney who is trying to recoup his litigation losses. Scott E. Diamond, a Pennsylvania plaintiff attorney stated that in 2009 154 malpractice suits were filed in Pennsylvania resulting in only 23 plaintiff verdicts for a .143 batting average for the plaintiff attorneys. There are not many .143 ballplayers in the major leagues -those guys get demoted to the minors. You are right in that my goal is to get rid of the current medical malpractice system and replace it with medical courts because it will reduce my malpractice premiums, promote patient safty, expediate claims and provide uniform compensation where indicated.
You promote the current system so you can hog outlandish fees on the backs of suffering patients and doctors.

Mikey - -so who goes thru years of litigation hell?The patient and the doctor. Who earns the fee? The defense and plaintiff attorneys. Who has to live with the case day in and out, - -the patient and the doctor. Who works on part of the case one day, is really not involved for a week/month as he does other cases and then comes back to collect a multimillion dollar fee - -the plaintiff attorney.We need to go to medical courts for fast, quick settlements without the years of litigation and the "blame and shame" game and get rid of the defense and plaintiff attorneys and judges.

Mikey: You and I have a fundamental disagreement. You think that the medical legal system which is run by lawyers and administered by a lawyer in a black robe which is dependant on court fees, defense attorney fees, medical "expert" fees and which takes years and years to reach a result is somehow "nonbiased". I believe medical courts would administer swift rewards and justice because we could render quick verdicts because we would quickly reject bogus medical "expert" opinion. In all honest, there might be bias toward medical professionals, but there is also bias in the legal system and excessive delays and costs too. I think medical courts could be a system which gets rid of the "blame and shame" system as it currently exists and move into a system which recognizes that "to err is human" so that we would be more willing to come forward and correct mistakes.

Mikey: Hey, I did not lie to those two people who died. Actually, they did not ask and it was only on self examination and critic that I found out. But I also don't lie to people like you plaintiff lawyers do, by claiming that all you are interested in is their right to a fair trial. Really what you are interested in is your right to large legal fees. We all know that medical courts would be fairer and quicker for the patient and doctor and the reason we don't have them right now is because of opposition by the plaintiff's bar.

Bill: Congress and legislatures have the right to change things for the betterment of society. A stock broker breaks into your brokerage account and steals your money, well you cannot take Merrill Lynch into court and bankrupt them, you go thru arbitration. Lights go out in a storm and you lose a freezer full of meat, cann't sue the electric company gotta complain to PUC. Society can also decide to set up medical courts for dispute resolution. That is the way we should go. The current medical legal situation certianly benefits the lawyers, but I can't see how it helps patients and doctors by putting them thru years of legal hell. As for your comment about lawyers and legal fees - -I would not comment about this except that I gets kind of sickening repeatedly hearing from pious lawyers talking about patient "rights" when what they are really trying to do is protect their fees. I get the feeling that lawyers think the sucker patient is just there to feed their greed for 50% contingency fees.

Bill, one of the interesting aspects of your 7th Admendment speech and the "right to hold people accountable" is that plaintiff attorneys and their expert witnesses are exempt. Yep, a plaintiff attorney can drag me thru years of malpractice litigation on a frivolous claim. When I finally get my day in court and win (docs win 80% of the time), what do I get? Yup, I closed my office for 2 weeks and lost a ton of patients and money, had my malpractice rates increased, damaged my reputation and there I am with a unanimous jury verdict stating that I was right! Can't sue the plaintiff attorney, or his lying expert, according to Brett Emison, that is just too bad, doc, you are a second class citizen!
If you don't like it move to England!

Johnnie,

Your trolling is tiring. As we have all heard, doing (or typing) the same thing over and over while expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Why don't you take a few plays off, Champ? Maybe get outside for some fresh air.

The fact that these lawyers continue to engage you is almost as bad as you constantly standing in their yard shaking your fist. But it is, after all, their yard, I guess.

LINK

After reading articles like this I am thankful I am fine after medical procedures. I don't want to be one of these unlucky people and get misdiagnosed. I was recommended LINK for a second opinon recently and I will definatly use this service again with how easy and fast it was to use. I'd highly suggest getting a second opinion done, after all it is OUR health and must make the best of it.