5 Comments
User's avatar
PJ's avatar

No wonder it was settled and not taken to trial. On one hand, a bad and sad outcome for Pt. On other hand, the plaintiff side is arguing that the physician should have willingly gone against an explicit statement in the CHG package insert. I cannot reconcile this as in our practice we use betadine for ESI and LP given the CHG package insert statement.

Expand full comment
Woojin Joo's avatar

What exactly does it mean when a settlement is reached? Does that mean that the patient's family and the hospital negotiated a dollar amount as compensation for the patient's death?

I don't quite understand. What was the malpractice?

Expand full comment
Med Mal Reviewer's avatar

It means the plaintiff agrees to drop the lawsuit in return for a payment from the hospital/doctor. Generally speaking, the doctor admits no wrongdoing when they settle.

Expand full comment
Woojin Joo's avatar

Is reaching a settlement common in instances of where there was no obvious wrongdoing? Why would the hospital be incentivized to settle when there is no malpractice, but rather a bad outcome?

Is the settlement covered by the physician's malpractice?

Expand full comment
Med Mal Reviewer's avatar

Yes, its fairly common to settle even when there was no obvious wrongdoing. There's a lot of incentive to do this. Once you take a lawsuit to trial, you have no idea what the jury will do. Even if the doctor did nothing wrong, the jury might return a verdict against you. Its also extremely expensive to take a lawsuit to trial. The settlement amounts can vary widely, but it often boils down to choosing a $50,000 settlement rather than taking a case to trial which will waste several years of time, $500,000 of bills from the law firm, and still run the risk of the jury doing something unexpected and returning a verdict with big damages.

Settlements are covered by the malpractice insurance, up to the insurance policy's cap.

Expand full comment