Elusive, Owasso (11/23/2009 3:48:04 AM)

So, why are doctors complaining their malpractice insurance is so high claiming their are so many lawsuits if in fact many suits are not won?

reckless abandon, Tulsa (11/23/2009 6:04:36 AM)

because doctors are whiners.

Davy Crotchety, Tulsa (11/23/2009 7:32:10 AM)

"There is no medical malpractice crisis," he said. "It's a lot of hype and frankly, bulls---."
---
That's right. Republicans are worse than useless in this health care debate. They are simply dishonest about it. Every month they are pushing a objection or scare tactic and they ALWAYS turn out to be fake: death panels (don't exist); costs (bill will save money over time according to CBO) and now tort reform ("bulls---").

bonbon, (11/23/2009 8:12:08 AM)

These indian hospitals are free for those who qualify. This is just a piece of what everyone will face if this health bill passes.

Davy Crotchety, Tulsa (11/23/2009 9:08:54 AM)

According to Mary Jo Green, Chickasaw legislator, Carl Albert had 233,000 visits in 2008. As tragic as this case is, it's "bulls---" to say that this outcome is common.

The Tiptons deserve justice and Carl Albert should make changes, but Bonbon's claim that "everyone" will face this kind of tragedy in the future is "bulls---" and symptomatic of a Republican culture where extremism and scare tactics are more important than facts and science.

To provide a little perspective, of that 233,000, 27 were statistically likely to have died in car wrecks that year. Accidents are an unhappy fact.

baddoctorsforoklahoma, (11/23/2009 9:15:28 AM)

The good news is that under the new "tort reform" law, the State of Oklahoma is on the hook for non-economic damages in excess of $400,000 for doctors who grossly negligent or act with malice. Thanks Dan Sullivan!

Moses, Jenks (11/23/2009 9:44:19 AM)

People do win big when they file a medical malpractice lawsuit against a hospital.
Just ask Senator John Sullivan about the lawsuit he filed against St. Francis Hospital!

LocalBoy, B.A. (11/23/2009 10:04:48 AM)

If you don't think the Health blss in Congress will turn healthcare into just another bureaucratic nightmare for all involved, providers and patinets alike, you are just blinded by the rhetoric and your dissatisfaction with your current situation. All change is not good.

Yes, the system needs changes but what Congress is considering will not be good for anyone except government bureaucrats.

LocalBoy, B.A. (11/23/2009 10:06:11 AM)

Statistics about punitive damages in suits that were actually decided in court are meaningless as the VAST majority of cases never see a courtroom.

Davy Crotchety, Tulsa (11/23/2009 10:44:51 AM)

Look who's blinded by "bulls---", LocalBoy. The CBO "estimates that malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of healthcare spending. Saving 2 percent of the over $2 trillion we spend on healthcare isn’t going to bend the cost curve."

It's an article in Salon...google it. That's not just suits, that's ALL malpractice. TORT (malpractice) reform is just more republican fiction for people who are easily, to borrow a phrase, "blinded by the rhetoric".

When you begin to get your facts straight, LocalBoy, you'll see that republicans are on the wrong side of this issue. They are working with big insurance to LIMIT the kinds of settlements that people like the Tiptons can get. It's not because malpractice is driving up the costs of health care, it's most certainly not. It's because republicans are always on the side of big business and never on the side of regular people.

TulKaiwan, Broken Arrow (11/23/2009 11:52:16 AM)

Crotchety, I think you need to read the article again. The quote, "There's no malpractice crisis.." supports the republicans' position. I'm not necessarily saying that it is a strong position. Because, like you, I have read the statistics that puts the total cost to the system of malpractice claims at only about 2%. However, this article is saying that of all the malpractice cases that went to court in Oklahoma last year, none were successful. In each of these cases doctors and hospitals had to hire attorneys to defend themselves. This definitely translates into higher insurance rates and therefore higher fees for physician and hospital care. Obviously there was some degree of fault in the cases that were settled out of court or they wouldn't have settled. But again, the article implies that these were few. So, the article is saying (without wanting to say it, it seems) that many of these suits are frivolous or at least ill-advised. What needs to change are the non-disclosure agreements. If a doctor's or hospital's malpractice records were public, then the market would weed out the bad apples.

LocalBoy, B.A. (11/23/2009 12:30:56 PM)

Ease off on the caffeine Davy. Where did I say that malpractice was the biggest part of the problem? I just said that I know what is in the bills, I know what an abysmal failure anything entrusted to our government is as far as efficiency, quality, and economy are concerned and that while there are many things that could and should be changed about the US health care system, the bills in Congress pretty well miss about 95% of the "could and should" in favor of creating dozens of new agencies, thousands of new regulations and thousands more government bureaucrats and will NOT lower the overall cost of health care in the US and most definitely WILL lower the quality of health care in the US.

But hey, you just want change - you don't really care what change - you just think the Democrats and big socialist government will take care of you so you don't have to.

LocalBoy, B.A. (11/23/2009 12:32:32 PM)

All right, that's more than what I "said" -- it's what I "meant."

tnt091605, (11/23/2009 2:15:45 PM)

Dr.'s insurance rates are sky high. The insurance companies say they do not loose many cases, but that many cases are filed and it is costly to defend. So don't blame the Dr.'s it is the insurance companies that are making all the money. Look at their earnings.

uklynbereg, (11/23/2009 2:43:44 PM)

A handsome boy and a sad story. Thank you, Tulsa World, for bringing malpractice data access problems to light.

Davy Crotchety, Tulsa (11/23/2009 3:05:10 PM)

TulKaiwan, no I don't think it supports Republican claims in either Oklahoma or the nation (as it pertains to Health Care reform). Frivolous lawsuits are not driving up costs substantially here or elsewhere. This republican crusade is bad ideas based upon false rhetoric.

(Google this) "For more than a decade House and Senate Republicans have sought to reform Oklahoma's justice system, according to information released by the House. They say frivolous lawsuits have increased health care costs, driven talented doctors out of our state because of high malpractice insurance rates and told companies to look to more business-friendly states when considering relocation or jobs creation."

and from today's article, "Last year, nobody won a case in Oklahoma,"

In the fact-based world, the need for tort reform does not sound nearly as bad as Chris Benge described it last May, "the days of Oklahoma being known as a jackpot justice state are over,"

They never existed to begin with.

Here's the REAL reason republicans want to limit the compensation of people like the Tibbets, "The American Insurance Association (AIA), an insurer trade group, praised passage of the bill..." It's about the money. As usual.

Bl. Collar, (11/23/2009 5:03:44 PM)

Did I read correctly,malpractice records are not available?

Nunya, (11/23/2009 5:25:47 PM)

If John Sullivan sued St. Francis then KUDOS to him. We only WISH we had the money to be able to do that. I hope St. Francis lost BIG TIME! That hospital disgusts me. Our experience there was HORRIBLE and the place was filthy, and so were some of the nurses who reeked of smoke, and their skill level - SCARY - they hardly ever washed their hands when they were treating the patient. We always had to remind them. And this was an elderly immuno compromised patient. Guess they figured another old discard? When we went to the higher ups to try to get some help it was like they were hiding. Next thing you know, they were mailing out a warning to stay away, or else, and that our efforts to contact that vice president of patient services woman was being perceived as threatening. Well if she isn't there for PATIENT SERVICES, what the heck is her JOB?

Nunya, (11/23/2009 5:42:24 PM)

I'm not so sure the malpractice cases are necessarily frivolous and that's why there are so few.

I am more inclined to believe that it's the good ol' boys network and those lawyers who pursue malpractice cases are soon shunned by the doctors and hospitals. That's an ugly reality in Texas. In one situation, a once successful malpractice lawyer and his wife couldn't get treatment. Word got around what he did and well, suddenly, doctor's offices were not accepting any new lawyer patients. I believe she even worked in a hospital and eventually lost her job.

Just look up malpractice lawyers in the phone book. Are there any at all? Just try to find a doctor in Tulsa that will testify against the hospital, or another doctor in the same town. GOOD LUCK. Before long, they too are shunned and become known as rat finks.

In addition, beware the "problem patient's" list. Don't think it exists? Well maybe not on paper but you can just about bet those phone lines are buzzing hot when a doctor is sued and that "problem patient's " name is forever memorialized in their brain.

Law is political. Plain and simple. Anything that any politician spews forth you can just about bet there is a hidden self serving agenda behind it. It's no different with judges or trial lawyers.

The law is an assinine......

Carl, Henryetta (11/23/2009 6:25:11 PM)

Unfortunately, the article doesn't say anything about what was "botched". Inducing labor and using vacuum extraction is not an extraordinary event. Doing it without the required supervision of a physician equals a violation of policy - which does not necessarily have anything to do with damages.

The boy was damaged - but WHY? Did the nurse midwives (not physicians, by the way) do anything WRONG? I don't know, the article doesn't say.

Just as the lawyers will tell you that the number of cases and the amounts of judgements is just a drop in the bucket - what they FAIL to mention is that most of the med mal cases result in the defendant doctors WINNING. To me, that pretty much says that the MAJORITY of these cases have little to no merit in the first place.

The amount of actual cases LOST may be small. But, as others have pointed out, the cost of DEFENDING these bogus suits is great. The amount of money that doctors obligate in the form of DEFENSIVE MEDICINE is great.

In order to get a true picture of the overall costs of medical malpractice - don't focus on the overall tiny amount that the truly LEGIT cases win. Focus on the WHOLE amount.

True medical malpractice SHOULD be punished appropriately - I don't think ANYONE would argue against that.

I think a simple "tort reform" measure that I, personally, would be happy with is quite simply put: LOSER PAYS.

Sue me and a jury of laypeople find in MY favor - the plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyer pay all the costs of the lawsuit. The way it is now - it costs nothing to bring a suit. AND you don't EVEN need ANY medical opinion as to the medical merits of the suit.

Many med mal suits are brought without the lawyer ever intending for it to go to trial - these are called "nuisance suits" - they gamble that the insurance company won't expend the resources to defend a marginal suit - and they ask for "a little money" to drop the suit.

Carl, Henryetta (11/23/2009 6:29:15 PM)

One suit that was brought against me is an example. AFTER the plaintiff refuted each and every one of his BOGUS allegations against me in his sworn deposition, his lawyer went to my lawyer and said this:

"We're dropping your guy from the suit, BUT do you think the insurance company will give us a little money FOR OUR TROUBLE?"

I'm not making this up - it is the God's honest truth! My lawyer asked: "How much is a 'little money'"? he actually asked for $5000!!!!! This was after his own client recanted all of his phony allegations!!! Of course, the answer was not only NO, it was H@LL NO.

Believe it or not.

That's the kind of stuff THEY never will tell you - or admit to in public.

As the lawyer told me earlier in the case: "It's just BUSINESS, doc - don't take it personally."

reckless abandon, Tulsa (11/23/2009 6:35:55 PM)

Moses--correction--the suit was against St. John and Sullivan was heard to brag about "the house that St. John built." So much for mourning the death of his infant. While the baby's death was a tragedy, there were many other factors that contributed to the infant's death--including reports of maternal non-compliance with recommended treatment.

Carl, Henryetta (11/23/2009 6:47:46 PM)

I'm glad - by the way, that the boy seems to be happy. I am sorry that he is impaired - but humans have a remarkable ability to overcome obstacles and I'm sure he will have a good life - filled with family, friends and love.

Carl, Henryetta (11/23/2009 7:03:28 PM)

In reference to the comment above about doctors not accepting lawyers or their families: sorry for that. As an ER doc, I see anyone and everyone that walks in the door - that is my role and I do it well. Private docs in their private practices can choose to accept or not accept any particular patient.

Put yourself in the doctor's shoes for a moment - would YOU be anxious to take on a lawyer's wife or a lawyer him/herself that was ill or pregnant - ESPECIALLY if there was a chance of a bad outcome? Everyone knows that doctors are sued often for BAD OUTCOMES - most times completely regardless of the facts. To take on a lawyer who would WITHOUT DOUBT go after you no matter if you actually committed a tort or not is something that some doctors would not happily do.

Just my two cents. I somehow doubt that this will get me much in the way of positive comments but I just thought that MAYBE, somebody would actually appreciate hearing a doctor's perspective.

1984, Tulsa (11/23/2009 7:41:15 PM)

Nunya I would assume you are one of the people I cant stand to take care of this is a hospital not a hotel I work at St Francis and maybe you should check out the childrens hospital its not nearly as dim looking as the older parts but you may want to take in the fact that this non-profit hospital has been here longer than you have been alive and has done a lot for this community when people like you come in and dont get their crackers with soup they throw a fit and complain at why then cant get their nurse when the nurse is in the next room trying to keep someone from dying then you say the hospital is bad shut up with your stupid comments and mow my lawn