Am I missing something in this case, what was done wrong here? The patient was obviously very sick with many chronic illnesses, why did they reach settlements? A cardiac surgeon I worked with for a long time would always tell me it didn’t matter how well you treated a patient, they can always sue you and you would have to pay just to save time and make the problem go away. Is this really how it works? No wonder healthcare is so expensive in the US
Settling is basically a calculated business move. Even if you were not negligent in any way, just the *allegation* of negligence is very costly to defend. You risk a jury doing something totally out of the blue, so its better to control the risk. There are many reasons why healthcare is so expensive here, and this is definitely one of them.
What are the downsides of suing for every bad outcome? Seems like the incentives are stacked in favor of suing and hoping for a settlement, regardless of how strong/weak the case is for negligence. Why aren't there more lawsuits?
You'll find a plaintiffs law firm willing to take any case if the bad outcome is actually catastrophic or fatal. Especially if it pulls at the jury's heart strings.
This is what I'm learning while reading these reports too. This isn't the first I suppose the cost/benefit favors reaching a settlement as opposed to risk going to court, even in cases where there is no malpractice.
I wonder if getting sued and reaching a settlement goes on the permanent record of the physicians.
Well there's permanent record of it in the legal system. Although really the only downside is that you might have to write it down when you apply for hospital privileges or a state medical license. But assuming there's not a pattern of true malpractice, its really not that onerous. Most docs get sued sooner or later.
Agree, although on the flip side they were giving the patient multiple doses of potassium each day and rechecking every morning. Seemed to be doing what any reasonable hospitalist would be doing, the K just wasnt responding as usual.
Am I missing something in this case, what was done wrong here? The patient was obviously very sick with many chronic illnesses, why did they reach settlements? A cardiac surgeon I worked with for a long time would always tell me it didn’t matter how well you treated a patient, they can always sue you and you would have to pay just to save time and make the problem go away. Is this really how it works? No wonder healthcare is so expensive in the US
Settling is basically a calculated business move. Even if you were not negligent in any way, just the *allegation* of negligence is very costly to defend. You risk a jury doing something totally out of the blue, so its better to control the risk. There are many reasons why healthcare is so expensive here, and this is definitely one of them.
What are the downsides of suing for every bad outcome? Seems like the incentives are stacked in favor of suing and hoping for a settlement, regardless of how strong/weak the case is for negligence. Why aren't there more lawsuits?
You'll find a plaintiffs law firm willing to take any case if the bad outcome is actually catastrophic or fatal. Especially if it pulls at the jury's heart strings.
This is what I'm learning while reading these reports too. This isn't the first I suppose the cost/benefit favors reaching a settlement as opposed to risk going to court, even in cases where there is no malpractice.
I wonder if getting sued and reaching a settlement goes on the permanent record of the physicians.
Well there's permanent record of it in the legal system. Although really the only downside is that you might have to write it down when you apply for hospital privileges or a state medical license. But assuming there's not a pattern of true malpractice, its really not that onerous. Most docs get sued sooner or later.
Agree, although on the flip side they were giving the patient multiple doses of potassium each day and rechecking every morning. Seemed to be doing what any reasonable hospitalist would be doing, the K just wasnt responding as usual.