Physicians doing the right thing!!! Tell malpractice lawyers to go get treatment somewhere else!

I would enjoy reading about medical malpractice attorneys being forced to open their own hospitals because physicians and health systems refused to treat them (on a non-emergent basis). That way...these pencil-necked sub-humans can sue themselves. Dang...that would be fun to watch!

I know this story is from 2004, but it is just such a feel good read! Physicians refusing to treat malpractice lawyer, and their families (on a non-emergent basis)…love it!!!!

Posted 6/13/2004 9:46 PM Updated 6/14/2004 7:02 AM

Medical-malpractice battle gets personal By Laura Parker, USA TODAY There are 73,084 working lawyers in Texas. Selina Leewright never thought that being married to one would cost her her job. But that's why Leewright, a nurse, was fired last summer by Good Shepherd Medical Center in the East Texas city of Longview. In dismissing her, hospital officials praised her nursing skills as "fantastic." But they told her that because her husband, Marty, worked at a law firm that does medical-malpractice litigation, the hospital could not continue to employ her. "I was dumbfounded," Leewright says. "They just assumed that my husband does medical malpractice, which he doesn't at all." Leewright's firing was a measure of how toxic the battle over medical-malpractice lawsuits has become. Hospital administrators and doctors across the nation, furious over what they see as waves of frivolous lawsuits that have driven up malpractice insurance costs, are striking back against lawyers with hardball tactics that, in some cases, are raising ethical questions. Some doctors are refusing medical treatment to lawyers, their families and their employees except in emergencies, and the doctors are urging the American Medical Association to endorse that view. Professional medical societies are trying to silence their peers by discouraging doctors from testifying as expert witnesses on behalf of plaintiffs. And a New Jersey doctor who supported malpractice legislation that his colleagues opposed was ousted from his hospital post. While sharing their peers' anger over malpractice lawsuits, some doctors see such tactics — particularly the refusal of treatment — as contrary to the Hippocratic oath, in which new doctors acknowledge "special obligations to all my fellow human beings." But Chris Hawk, a surgeon in Charleston, S.C., says the notion of refusing treatment to malpractice lawyers, their family members and associates not only is justified, it's necessary. "This idea may be repulsive," Hawk says. "It's hardball. But it's ethical." Hawk, 57, says that a doctor's ethical obligation to treat patients applies only to emergency care. "Physicians are not bound to treat everybody who walks through their door," he says. Doctors and lawyers long have been at odds over malpractice litigation. But soaring malpractice-insurance premiums, which hit doctors in high-risk specialties such as neurosurgery and obstetrics particularly hard, have fueled the debate. For doctors who blame the increases in their premiums on unwarranted lawsuits and large jury awards, the solution is clear: Overhaul the nation's civil litigation system, starting with limits on what jurors can award in damages. Malpractice lawyers, led by the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, counter that rising premiums have more to do with the insurance industry than jury awards. They say tighter regulation of the industry is needed. The lawyers say that stifling malpractice litigation could deny Americans some of their rights to seek redress in court when doctors make mistakes. The AMA is backing federal legislation, now stalled in the U.S. Senate, that would cap pain-and-suffering awards against obstetricians and emergency room doctors at $250,000. Meanwhile, the battles continue in state legislatures. All but nine states have restricted medical-malpractice lawsuits in recent years. But the AMA contends that only six states have passed "effective" legislation, meaning laws that cap money awards. This month in Mississippi, where lawmakers have been at odds over the issue for years, the legislature limited medical-malpractice awards for pain and suffering — as opposed to actual medical bills — to $500,000. The measure was approved amid acrimony that Percy Watson, a lawyer and legislator from Hattiesburg, says was unlike anything he had seen in his 25 years in the state House. Watson says that at one point he got a letter from an angry doctor he doesn't know, and that the doctor told Watson he would refuse to treat the lawmaker because of his opposition to limiting malpractice awards against doctors. "But it's not only with this doctor, it's prevalent in other areas in the state," Watson says. "Some of my colleagues in Hattiesburg who were not involved in (malpractice issues) have been refused the services of doctors just because they are lawyers." In South Carolina, Hawk says he first urged fellow doctors to refuse non-emergency treatment to lawyers, their families and employees in a speech at the state medical association's convention in March. The state association declined to endorse his proposal. Patricia Westmoreland, a dermatologist and member of the association's board of trustees, says she supports limits on awards and sympathizes with Hawk's frustration. But she disagrees with his approach. "It flies in the face of just basic honesty and goodness," she says. "It's prejudiced. As a physician, I take an oath to see people and take care of people, and to refuse to take care of a sick person is just anathema to me." But Hawk wants the AMA to adopt his view as its policy. That seems unlikely — AMA leaders have been silent on the issue — but Hawk plans to argue his case in Chicago this week during the AMA's annual meeting. Hawk says his tactic is "analogous to hitting the lawyers with a 2-by-4. Now we have their attention. Now maybe we can make some progress." Plaintiffs allegedly blacklisted The bitter divide between doctors and lawyers has been exposed in a range of ways recently. Earlier this spring, a Texas radiologist's Web site, DoctorsKnow.Us, set up a national database of patients and their attorneys who have sued for malpractice. The site's stated purpose was to discourage frivolous lawsuits. But patients and their attorneys suggested the site essentially blacklisted some patients from receiving doctors' services. The site was shut down in March, after news reports detailed difficulties people listed on the site had in getting medical care. In New Hampshire, Tim Coughlin, president of the New Hampshire Trial Lawyers Association, recalls an angry confrontation last fall with RickMiller, a neurosurgeon from Portsmouth, N.H. Miller told Coughlin, 40, that because Coughlin lobbied against limits on malpractice suits, Miller would refuse him treatment. "I don't do medical-malpractice work. I'm just a basic urban lawyer," Coughlin says. "He told me he had made a decision. I told him I thought that was uncalled for. He and I disagree on political matters. "He's known as the best neurosurgeon on the Sea Coast. If I had a brain situation, I would hope he would operate on me regardless of my position" on malpractice suits. "But he's told me he wouldn't." Miller describes his position as "firing a shot across (the) bow" of the trial lawyers group. "If Tim Coughlin came into the emergency room with some life-threatening emergency, I wouldn't hesitate to treat him. But if he came into my office because he had a herniated disk and wanted me to take care of him as an elective patient, I would decline to see him." Miller, who says he has not been sued for malpractice, says he pays $84,151 a year for malpractice insurance. He says that after he paid business costs and taxes last year, his take-home pay was $64,000. "That's less than my malpractice premium," Miller says. "This puts in perspective how desperate the situation is. Attorneys who choose to speak out and try to derail efforts at meaningful tort reform do so at some risk — that they will not be able to come to the best neurosurgeon in New Hampshire. They'll have to go elsewhere, the same way that patients will have to go elsewhere if neurosurgery is no longer available on the Sea Coast." The refusal-to-treat tactic has generated the most controversy in the conflict over medical malpractice. But more disturbing to many lawyers are the efforts to silence doctors from testifying as expert witnesses on behalf of plaintiffs: • In Florida, Tampa General Hospital announced plans in February to revise its employee "code of conduct" by prohibiting staff from testifying on behalf of plaintiffs. (They may testify as witnesses for hospitals and doctors.) • Also in Florida, three doctors who were sued unsuccessfully for malpractice urged the Florida Medical Association to investigate a California doctor's testimony on behalf of the plaintiffs to "prevent the medical profession from being terrorized ... by similar 'experts.' " John Fullerton, a San Francisco internist, has responded by suing the Tampa doctors for libel. He claims that he was defamed by statements the trio made in urging a review of his testimony. His lawsuit also alleges conspiracy, witness intimidation and violation of state racketeering laws. • In Jersey City, the medical staff at Christ Hospital voted to remove George Ciechanowski as chief of staff, according to news accounts, because he backed malpractice legislation that many of his colleagues opposed. Lawyers decry the refusal to treat lawyers and the efforts to silence physicians. The lawyers say doctors want it both ways: They want the legal limits on malpractice lawsuits, yet have no qualms about filing suits themselves. When Hawk began his campaign against lawsuits, critics noted that he had filed one after his wife was in a car accident during the mid-1980s. Hawk's insurance company refused to pay the claim because he filed it three days after the legal deadline for doing so had expired, so he sued. A jury awarded his wife $525,000. But an appeals court threw out the case. It said Hawk's suit was moot because he had missed the filing deadline. "I'm not saying somebody shouldn't have the right to sue," Hawk says. "I'm saying we should ... limit the awards, and in some way make the loser pay so that we don't have a lot of frivolous suits. An automobile accident is rarely a frivolous suit." 'I didn't do anything wrong' In Texas, Leewright is considering whether to sue the Longview hospital for wrongful termination. Leewright, 30, was hired on May 29, 2003, and assigned to work in the hospital's nursery. Leewright, whose fluent Spanish helped with Spanish-speaking patients, says she often was called to work extra shifts. "There was a nursing shortage. I wanted them to know I was a team player." Leewright says she thought the job was going well. Then, on July 16, she was called in to meet with her bosses. She says they praised her nursing skills, but then told her that because her husband is a lawyer, she was being terminated. A hospital spokeswoman, Victoria Ashworth, citing confidentiality, says "all personnel matters are private and not discussed with outside parties." Leewright filed a complaint with the Texas Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which did not make a finding on the merits of her case but issued a notice of her right to sue. Documents filed in that case outline the hospital's practices regarding spouses of lawyers. The hospital, according to one document submitted by its attorney, has an "unwritten practice" not to employ spouses of lawyers who represent plaintiffs in medical malpractice or personal injury lawsuits "because of the perceived likelihood of a conflict of interest." The profitability of Marty Leewright's law firm provides a financial benefit to his wife, the document says. "That gives her an incentive to pass on confidential information that she obtains as a Good Shepherd employee." Leewright says the hospital never mentioned its unwritten practice regarding spouses when it interviewed her for the job. She says she did not violate hospital ethics. "I didn't do anything wrong," she says. "They assume I'm going to be unethical. They assume that I'm kind of sneaky and will try to refer cases. That's absurd." It took her until November to find work at Longview's only other hospital. Marty Leewright says his wife's experience has been difficult. "All the nursing students know about what's happened to her," he says. "It's just like a cloud that follows her around."

Tort reform will never be enacted in the U.S. unless lawyers are banned from State and Federal Government elected office....Just saying!

Story #1

Read all 'bout how the trail lawyers that run NY State Government peed-the-bed when Gov. Cuomo even thought about Medical Malpractice tort reform!

The sharks vs. the gov

Last Updated: 12:14 AM, January 22, 2012

Posted: March 21, 2011

New York stands on the brink of taking its first-ever serious steps toward genuine tort reform -- and the benefits could be huge.

Provided Gov. Cuomo stands firm.

Because the ambulance chasers and their legislative allies -- led by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Weitz & Luxenberg) -- are at full throttle, screaming about the supposed triumph of "special interests." (They're ones to talk!)

Trust us: It's all about billable hours.

As part of its 79 recommendations to realize $2.3 billion in savings, Cuomo's Medicaid task force called for a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages in medical-malpractice cases -- i.e., "emotional pain and suffering." It also proposed an indemnity fund for brain-damaged infants.

Together, the two moves are expected to produce $700 million in Medicaid savings. But they also mean a potentially significant loss of income for tort lawyers, who love to boast of their multimillion-dollar jury verdicts and settlements -- of which they get a very healthy slice.

No wonder the state Bar Association wasted no time in reaffirming its "long-standing opposition to caps on non-economic damages in medical-malpractice or any other tort action."

Trial lawyers aren't accustomed to making concessions; they're used to Albany filling their outstretched hands -- as then-Gov. David Paterson did last year, when he quietly slipped through a plan to lift a quarter-century cap on medical-malpractice awards.

Fact is, just the threat of malpractice suits in litigation-happy New York has sent doctors' insurance premiums soaring, not to mention hospital costs -- which hit $1.6 billion in 2009 just for lawsuit-related expenses. Those premiums, in turn, have driven away doctors, particularly obstetricians.

To the lawyers, of course, this isn't about their share of the take -- it's about "the ability of victims to be fairly compensated." Ha!

Last week, the two legislative houses addressed the issue in starkly different ways in their budget bills: The GOP-controlled Senate preserved both med-mal measures; Silver's Assembly ditched the cap and proposed the trial lawyers' changes to the indemnity fund, effectively making it unworkable.

It's up to the gov to save his reform.

New York can't afford to let this historic opportunity slip by.

Story #2

Just what you thought would happen, and it aint just in NY either!

Tort Reform Betrayed in New York

Matthew McKillip

From The Foundry 

March 28, 2011 at 2:00 pm

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s surprising push for tort reform came to an end Sunday night. The latest New York budget plan eliminates the proposed $250,000 “cap on non-economic damages for medical malpractice awards” that would have saved the state an estimated $384 million. Cuomo, a Democrat, abandoned the plan even after he accepted the Medicaid Redesign Team’s proposal.

The setback leaves New York’s blundering Medicaid program unreformed and according to Mississippi Governor Hailey Barbour, no meaningful changes can be made to until someone in the Governor’s Mansion follows through on tort reform.

“The first rule [of tort reform],” Barbour told The Heritage Foundation last March, “is that you cannot pass real tort reform unless it is led by a governor.”

The need for tort reform is obvious: New Yorkers have felt the burden of soaring premiums and the loss of doctors from the state. Bill Hammond of the New York Daily News wrote presents a specific case: “It’s not unusual for New York ob-gyns to shell out more in premiums than they take home in pay – which is why dozens either quit delivering babies or flee the state whenever there’s another rate increase.”

Not enough, though, has been made of how tort reform, or stopping “lawsuit abuse” as Barbour prefers to call it, will keep jobs in New York and attract new business. Barbour related how in 2007, Toyota chose to build a Prius assembly plant in Mississippi and “said publicly they would not have chosen Mississippi if we had not passed tort reform.” Barbour’s experience is not an outlier– economist Lawrence McQuillan reported that there is “57 percent greater job growth in the tort reform states.”

While Cuomo’s 2% budget cuts are an admirable step towards fiscal sanity, he must remember that New York ranks 49^th in tort reform liability. One of Cuomo’s first acts in office was to appoint a Medicaid Redesign Team and it would be a disservice to his constituents if he never returns to the issue of law suit abuse.

 

Obamacare raises Physician Malpractice rates, and as long as Trial Lawyers are Obama’s top camping donors the cost of Malpractice insurance will continue to increase!

Trial Lawyer give to Obama….Trial Lawyers take money from Physicians….So Obama will never address Malpractice reform!

Health care act's glaring omission: liability reform

By Dr. Anthony Youn, Special to CNN

updated 8:43 AM EDT, Fri October 5, 2012

 

Editor's note: Dr. Anthony Youn is an assistant professor of surgery at the Oakland University/William Beaumont School of Medicine in Michigan. He is the author of "In Stitches," a memoir about growing up Asian-American and becoming a doctor.

 

(CNN) -- Coverage for 30 million uninsured. A ban on lifetime payout limits. No co-pays or deductibles on preventive medical services. Insurers prohibited from excluding patients based on pre-existing medical conditions.

 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as "Obamacare") creates a massive, wide-scale overhaul of the heavily flawed and criticized health care system of the United States.

But for all of the Obama administration's work in creating this 906-page federal law, there is one glaring omission that could decrease the costs of health care and help relieve the upcoming physician shortage.

 

Medical liability reform!!!

 

How could the Obama administration create such a comprehensive overhaul of health care without addressing this issue? Although not a panacea for the health problems in the United States, the need for physicians to practice defensive medicine in order to avoid potential litigation has far-reaching consequences.

 

A 2008 survey of Massachusetts doctors found that 83% admitted to practicing defensive medicine. This study determined that 18% to 28% of tests, procedures and referrals and 13% of hospital admissions were performed for the sake of avoiding lawsuits. In this one state alone, an estimated $281 million in unnecessary physician costs and more than $1 billion in excessive hospital costs was due to the practice of defensive medicine. Across the country, doctors are ordering tests and consultations as a way to protect themselves from potential liability.

 

In our litigation-obsessed culture, the costs for doctors to purchase liability insurance can be astronomical. According to the Medical Liability Monitor, in 2011, general surgeons in Florida's Miami-Dade County paid $190,000 per year for malpractice insurance. General internists in Detroit paid approximately $35,000 per year for coverage.

 

It's a well-known fact that family medicine physicians and even obstetrician-gynecologists are giving up the practice of obstetrics because of the excessive cost of malpractice insurance and the fear of potential lawsuits. Even if physicians purchase malpractice insurance, it's no guarantee that, should they get sued, they will not lose virtually everything they have. The maximum coverage most malpractice insurance carriers will offer a physician is $1 million per lawsuit. That means any verdict greater than this limit comes out of the doctor's pocket.

 

In today's climate of multimillion-dollar verdicts, one lawsuit could be financially devastating. A physician can work 30 years, healing and saving the lives of thousands of patients, yet one mistake at the end of his or her career could literally cost them everything. Is that right?

Under this type of hostile litigious climate, why wouldn't physicians order that extra test, keep their patients in the hospital that extra night or refer for a second opinion?

 

As a board-certified plastic and reconstructive surgeon, I'm aware of this every day. A recent study found that plastic surgeons have a 99% chance of getting sued by the time they reach age 65.

Does the fear of missing a diagnosis and getting sued cause me to order more tests and referrals for my patients? Definitely.

 

So why hasn't the Obama administration included medical liability reform in the Affordable Care Act? I suspect that it comes down to dollars. Not health care dollars or insurance dollars but campaign donation dollars. According to OpenSecrets.org, since 1990, the American Association for Justice, previously known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, has given 92% of its $36.8 million in contributions to Democrats.

 

The association is also a large contributor to President Barack Obama's re-election campaign. It is opposed to malpractice tort reform, for obvious reasons, and I suspect that it may have played a significant role in the absence of malpractice liability reform in the Affordable Care Act.

In a 2009 speech to Congress, Obama stated that he "talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs." With the cost of health care continuing to rise, it's a shame his Affordable Care Act doesn't include a provision addressing this.

 

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Anthony Youn.

 

Read all about it......Obamacare...Ambulance Chasers (Malpractice Lawyers) win...American workers Loose!

And we all know since Trail Lawyers and Ambulance chasers are Obama’s TOP CAMPAIGN DONORS there will be no Medical Tort reform happening under Obama! Again…Americans loose…Obama Wins…and his trial Lawyer Friends laugh all the way to the bank!

Trial Lawyer Expects Medical Malpractice Claims to Increase Under Obamacare

By Jon Street

July 13, 2012

 (CNSNews.com) - A New York-based law firm predicts that Obamacare will increase the number of medical malpractice claims, as physicians are flooded with millions of previously uninsured patients.

James A. Morris, Jr., a plaintiffs' attorney with a mass-tort and personal-injury litigation law firm in New York, said he believes that many doctors and hospitals are ill-prepared for the increased caseload stemming from an estimated 20 million to 40 million uninsured Americans who soon will gain coverage.

"I think there's no question that medical errors will happen on a more frequent basis once the Affordable Care Act takes full effect in either 2014 or 2015 and those individuals and families who were previously uninsured sign up for coverage," said Morris in a news release. "The more people you have accessing medical care, the greater the potential incidence of medical mistakes in which injuries or death occur," he added.

But a spokesperson for the American Medical Association, which supported the Democrats' health care law, told CNSNews.com there is no evidence to suggest that government-mandated insurance coverage will cause more medical liability claims.

“The [Affordable Care Act] does not create additional patients,” the spokesperson said on background. “The law provides increased health insurance coverage for patients who did not have it before. These patients were already in the health care system,” the AMA spokesperson said.

The American Medical Association, in a news release, said the expanded health care coverage upheld by the Supreme Court will allow patients to see their doctors earlier rather than waiting for treatment until they are sicker and care is more expensive.

It also “simplifies administrative burdens, including streamlining insurance claims, so physicians and their staff can spend more time with patients and less time on paperwork,” said AMA President Jeremy A. Lazarus, MD.

But according to trial lawyer Morris, "most medical mistakes in hospitals are due to the unavailability of resources or to physicians and staff being so overworked that they haven't the time necessary to fully investigate a patient's prior medical history, co-morbidities and drug use before procedures are performed."

He suggested that one way healthcare providers could reduce the risk of lawsuits is by expanding the size of their staffs and keeping their skills current.

Obamacare will "increase demand for more doctors, nurses and allied-health practitioners," Morris said. "For that reason, schools of medicine and nursing should strive to enroll more students, while hospitals should more aggressively recruit licensed and fully trained practitioners from both inside and outside the U.S."

For now, injured patients and their families have little alternative but to turn to the courts for help, Morris said.

"Medical-malpractice attorneys act as a watchdog over the medical profession," he said.

Under Obamacare, the Obama administration is authorized to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to address an anticipated shortage of primary care doctors.

In fact, three months after President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, his Health and Human Services Department announced it would spend $250 million “to increase the number of health care providers and strengthen the primary care workforce.”

 

Physician Salaries and the American Health System...Death by a thousand cuts! And still no tort reform!

Physicians will be reimbursed less for imaging studies; this on top of cuts already pushed into law (ObamaCare) will lower physician “take home” salaries! Our Medical System is dying a death by a thousand cuts, and ah….what about tort reform….anybody?

Fiscal Cliff’ Deal Includes Medical Imaging Cuts

By Diagnostic Imaging Staff |January 2, 2013

---

Legislation passed to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff” cuts reimbursement to certain medical imaging services and retains the medical device excise tax — elements industry advocates said would hinder patient access and threaten jobs.

"When you add up all the Medicare cuts and Congress' reluctance to address the medical device tax, this legislation produces a devastating impact that harms patient access to care, moves manufacturing jobs overseas and threatens America's leadership in medical research and development," Gail Rodriguez, executive director of the Medical Imaging and Technology Alliance, said in a statement.

Congress passed the legislation this week to avert drastic automatic spending cuts and tax hikes.

The measure reduces physician office Medicare payments for advanced imaging services by $800 million and hospital payments for radiation therapy by $300 million over 10 years, according to MITA. The legislation also retains the 2.3 percent medical device tax.

The Access to Medical Imaging Coalition said the cuts represent another “imaging-targeted provision” compounding pervious reductions for imaging services in recent years. The cuts come as imaging use has declined, AMIC said. A recent MITA report found utilization per Medicare beneficiary has declined by 5.12 percent since 2009 and spending on imaging services has dropped 16.7 percent since 2006.

“Unfortunately rather than basing payment decisions on up-to-date data, which show imaging use on the decline, Congress is blindly slashing Medicare payments for diagnostics without true knowledge about how their previous cuts affect seniors’ access to early diagnosis services,” Tim Trysla, AMIC’s executive director, said in a statement. “We know that cuts which already have gone into effect have forced physician practices and providers to scale back on clinical staff and forgo technology upgrades.”

The legislation did include a provision to stop the scheduled 27 percent cut in Medicare physician payments. The so-called “doc fix” staves off Sustainable Growth Rate mandated cuts for one year.