Another reason we will beat the Jags.....

[Art]

This is one messed up situation.

http://espn.go.com/gen/s/2002/0912/1431095.html

[JimboDaMan]

Ugh. Some of that is downright nasty.

Looks like tough-guy Coughlin is a bit of a wimp. He's all over his players to play with gruesome wounds. And its admittedly difficult to tell where that line is between pain and injury. But when he crosses the line he's not man enough to own up.

[Fred Smoot Fan]

The reason we'll win is because Jags are worse than us. They're dreadful on defense and Fred Taylor is injured...again add to that Jimmy Smith being about ready to collect that retirement check and you have a crappy team.

[NavyDave]

When it comes to my body its 3rd and 5th opinions.

[Awesome]

That's some ugly pr if I've ever seen any

[Murilo Bustamante]

Reading stories like that, and about Wilbur Marshall, make me feel guilty sometimes about being a football fan.

And I think it should give anyone pause who complains about these guys asking for several million bucks to play "a kid's game."

[redman]

The problem is that they're both right, in the sense that as an NFL player, you don't treat injuries normally.

That having been said, the idea of lancing a wound without first cleaning the area is mind-boggling. And it sounds like Coughlin's propensity to be an A-hole is coming back to haunt him. I've never liked him or his persona, and it doesn't sound like the players do either.

[bulldog]

Coughlin's teams have choked in big games and his penchant for reaching for the panic button to bring in overpriced older players like Carnell Lake and Hardy Nickerson (sound familiar?) ruined the team as it had to jettison 8-10 good players to stay under the cap.

what's funny is this guy gets a free pass from the media.

people are out there criticizing Spurrier and even guys like Holmgren, but what has Coughlin ever won in the NFL?

His biggest feat was LOSING a championship game at home after having a 14-0 lead.

Big deal.

[OrangeSkin]

That's just disgusting. I didn't read the whole article because I'm far too lazy and stupid, but the pictures don't like very savory.

[Skins57]

That was sick. How another judge could overturn that is stupid. I can see how something happens like that with the team doctors and the great players do get the "Jordon" rules. That was nasty

I am not sure how that will help us on Sunday but maybe the league needs to step in and have better vision on the medical side of the game

[Blade]

DISCLAIMER: Blade is climbing on his soap box for this post...

Ok, I can tell you that the surgeon in question was probably trying to prevent a very serious complication called "compartment syndrome". This is where the blood collects within the muscular compartment and can cut off the blood supply to the rest of the leg, and ultimately lead to an amputation if the pressure within the comparment is not relieved. Pressure within the compartment is relieved by cutting open the skin and providing an outlet for the blood to escape and relieve the pressure.

It is quite possible that the doctor considered this to be an emminent possibility, and thought it needed to be addressed immediately. From the picture I can tell you that they cleaned the skin, dressed it with sterile drapes, and used sterile gloves. The fact that the doctor still had his glove on and did not wear a hat wont make a difference if the patient is going right back out to sweat and play on that leg. Its going to get infected regardless of what the doctor does.

The key point in this article is that THE DOCTOR told players NOT TO PRACTICE/PLAY and the TRAINERS CONTRADICTED HIS ORDERS after he left the building. If there are SEVERAL other expert surgeons who are saying this guy did everything right, then there is damn good reason for it..... most likely, he DID the right thing for the player, but had his authority undermined by the rest of the paramedical and coaching staff.

I will not let this thread digress into a debate over medical tort reform, although I am greatly tempted.... Just understand that there are at least 50 frivolous law suits against doctors for every legitimate act of malpractice. Suits are settled far more often to avoid the cost and emotional expense to the doctor and his insurance company than due to true legitimate malpractice. Next time you are waiting 2 hours to see a doctor, and get asked the same question 6 times in a row, and are forced to go somewhere else to have lab work drawn, and are forced to find a new OBGYN for your wife because they quit doing OB because of the insurance costs, or are forced to find a new MD because your old one left for a state with more rational malpractice laws, you can thank the state and federal lawmakers for letting the trial lawyers and health insurance companies influence laws to the detriment of the patients.

The legal system in most states allows doctors to be punished by juries in cases where they did THE RIGHT THING for the patient, but still had a bad outcome. Thus, we've been conned into trading the doctor-patient relationship for the rare possiblity of winning a lottery-ticket-sized jury reward when something bad happens.

Just remember that 40% goes to the lawyer, and another 40% goes to the government.

[Muskrat]

Regardless, this guy deserves monetary compensation for lost wages. Assuming that no one is to blame, the team in question(the Jaguars) should foot the bill for any future medical procedures as well as compensation. It's just the right thing to do....which means it probably won't happen.

[luckydevil]

My father is a doctor. Most cases are full of bs. Im sure the doctor in this case was just doing his job

[JimboDaMan]

Oh, I'm certain the guy was just doing his job. That's the problem, this guy's job as a 'doctor' is much like being the nutritionist for McDonald's. You practice your profession according to rules that violate what everyone else in the field believes to be proper.

Blade's point is well taken, that there are many many judgments upheld against good doctors who followed accepted medical practice but thru no fault of their own had bad results. But anyone involved in the medical profession can attest there are also many cases of the reverse, mistakes or substandard care that never are compensated, that the patient never hears about.

It would take an almost superhuman person to provide what any of us would consider acceptable care while balancing the team's desire to gain benefit from the incredible salaries these guys draw. I expect that most team doctors, being human, fall short from time to time. And in this case some others in a position of trust, the trainers and coaches, made the situation even worse.

When that happens its time to take your lumps. The Jag's response is to blame shift. Coughlin is the coach and bears ultimate responsibility. The doctor, even if he made correct judgements, cannot then allow his word to be overruled and maintain any professional credibility. No one is at fault, except for maybe the kid himself. This is the coward's way out.

[TennesseeCarl]

O.K. speaking as an attorney, let's say we give the doctors complete immunity from malpractice suits. We sure don't want that money going to lawyers or to the government.

What do we get in return? Are doctors going to lower their fees? Yeah...sure. I'll believe that. Are we gonna get to actually see a doctor and spend a few minutes with 'em or will we continue to be treated as human cattle?

If anyone out there actually believes that 'tort reform' will benefit anyone other than doctors (and there's a group that desparately needs protection, no?) and insurance companies, you're dreaming.

As a citizen and a consumer of health care, I'd love to see some reform, but extending blanket immunity doesn't make a bit of sense to me. With all due respect, I don't trust health care professionals to police themselves.

Rant over...

[dchogs]

TC,

I understand where you are coming from in regards to anyone policing themselves. shame we can't trust eachother. the truth is, however, that the medical profession is changing. people are not going into medicine to make money. there are easier ways to make money than to spend a quarter of a million dollars in education, toil for an estimated average of 5 years as a resident (making $30,000-$40,000 while working 90+ hours a week), and battle managed health care on an hourly basis. would they lower prices if they didn't have to pay out the yin yang for insurance? who knows.

there are lots of doctors that can't sustain a suitable private practice. specifically, in pennsylvania, the amount of suits brought against doctors in the state has lead malpractice insurance companies to stricly limit the number of policies in the state. a friend of my dad's has to move his practice to another state because he can't find any company that is willing to insure him in PA (and he has a clean legal record in terms of malpractice).

another case: due to high malpractice insurance costs and reduced payments by managed health organizations a GYN oncologist could not make rent for his practice and was forced to close his doors and change his specality to a general practicioner.

are lawyers the sole cause for the troubles facing the medical profession? no, but they are a significant cause. what would we do and where would we be if the medical profession got together, said "enough is enough," and went on strike? we need our docs, nurses, and techs and they should not be held up as robbers interested only in their personal wealth.

[redman]

Blade,

I was actually waiting for a reply from you, and I would have PM'd you about it had you not written.

As you know, I'm a lawyer, a so-called trial lawyer to be exact (make sure to hide your children!). I do civil litigation defense work, and a good portion of my practice and even more of my experience comes from defending doctors in medical malpractice cases.

Originally posted by Blade

DISCLAIMER: Blade is climbing on his soap box for this post...

Ok, I can tell you that the surgeon in question was probably trying to prevent a very serious complication called "compartment syndrome". This is where the blood collects within the muscular compartment and can cut off the blood supply to the rest of the leg, and ultimately lead to an amputation if the pressure within the comparment is not relieved. Pressure within the compartment is relieved by cutting open the skin and providing an outlet for the blood to escape and relieve the pressure.

It is quite possible that the doctor considered this to be an emminent possibility, and thought it needed to be addressed immediately. From the picture I can tell you that they cleaned the skin, dressed it with sterile drapes, and used sterile gloves. The fact that the doctor still had his glove on and did not wear a hat wont make a difference if the patient is going right back out to sweat and play on that leg. Its going to get infected regardless of what the doctor does.

The key point in this article is that THE DOCTOR told players NOT TO PRACTICE/PLAY and the TRAINERS CONTRADICTED HIS ORDERS after he left the building. If there are SEVERAL other expert surgeons who are saying this guy did everything right, then there is damn good reason for it..... most likely, he DID the right thing for the player, but had his authority undermined by the rest of the paramedical and coaching staff.

Here's the deal. I'd have no problem defending this guy. Short of there being intentional misconduct by the doctor, or something so patently and obviously careless that one does not require a physician to help them interpret the meaning of the case (e.g. operating on the wrong limb), there are always medical reasons to use to explain a doctor's actions in a given situation. That doesn't mean that they're always legitmate.

This is not attributable purely to the ability of the defense to always find a physician to act as an expert in defense of the doctor (a so-called "defense whore", which I avoid using unless there are simply no other options; there are "plaintiff's whores" too, BTW). Rather, it comes primarily from the fact that medical treatment is more an art than a science, and a significant amount of leeway is left to the doctor in the clinical setting to determine how to proceed. And as you find in every other walk of life, "there's more than one way to skin a cat."

What this doctor needs to worry about though is that he failed to account for the environment he was in. I don't mean to restrict that literally to the fact that he performed a surgical procedure in a non-sterile locker room, although that's part of it. Rather, he seems to have ignored the professional football setting and the willingness of coaches, trainers and players to ignore otherwise serious medical problems with this "be a man" attitude. If he had wanted to, he could have checked this player into a hospital for observation, and could have put him on an antibiotic prophylaxis to help prevent infection if he wanted to make an effort to prevent infection, which is the obvious complication from such a procedure.

He seems to have decided to ignore these options in favor of telling the player not to play, undoubtedly with a wink and a nod, if not literally then figuratively. Do you really think that he explained all of the potential risks to this player? I frankly doubt it, and this doctor's history certainly implies otherwise. This player could have lost a limb or even died if the infection had advanced enough. He's lucky that he didn't get gangrene on that leg.

Originally posted by Blade

I will not let this thread digress into a debate over medical tort reform, although I am greatly tempted.... Just understand that there are at least 50 frivolous law suits against doctors for every legitimate act of malpractice. Suits are settled far more often to avoid the cost and emotional expense to the doctor and his insurance company than due to true legitimate malpractice. Next time you are waiting 2 hours to see a doctor, and get asked the same question 6 times in a row, and are forced to go somewhere else to have lab work drawn, and are forced to find a new OBGYN for your wife because they quit doing OB because of the insurance costs, or are forced to find a new MD because your old one left for a state with more rational malpractice laws, you can thank the state and federal lawmakers for letting the trial lawyers and health insurance companies influence laws to the detriment of the patients.

The legal system in most states allows doctors to be punished by juries in cases where they did THE RIGHT THING for the patient, but still had a bad outcome. Thus, we've been conned into trading the doctor-patient relationship for the rare possiblity of winning a lottery-ticket-sized jury reward when something bad happens.

Everything that you write about problems for doctors is correct. Every, every doctor I talk to voices the same complaints. They do their best to treat patients within the thick medical beaurocracy that exists around hospitals, they then submit bills to HMO's who cut them, and/or pay them late with little or no recourse from the doctor, and then they get sued for malpractice, often in cases that go nowhere and are dropped relatively quickly. But because their insurance coverage is based upon a "claims made" basis, their rates go up anyway.

I have a doctor I represent right now who is mad as hell because a wacky plaintiff (I've talked to her, she's mentally unstable) who was unrepresented by counsel filed a BS lawsuit against him for injuries that were her own damn fault and then dropped it within a month of my involvement. That still goes on his insurance record and his rates will go up.

I went to college with a guy whose mother was a nurse-assistant to a respiratory therapist. His mother earned more per hour than her boss because of these problems.

Don't get carried away with what the law says about this stuff. Here's the standard California "BAJI" jury instruction #6.02 labled "MEDICAL PERFECTION NOT REQUIRED" on the very point you were talking about:

A physician is not necessarily negligent because [he] errs in judgement or because [his] efforts prove unsuccessful. The physician is negligent if the error in judgement or lack of success is due to a failure to perform any of the duties as defined in these instructions

In other words, malpractice is not predicated on the outcome of the treatment, but rather upon the physician's compliance with the applicable standards of care, which are determined by the approved practices in the medical community.

I respect and admire most doctors. But my experience in medical malpractice has been humbling. Nobody's perfect, and there are some plain, flat bad doctors out there. That shouldn't be a shock as that applies to any profession.

What it means is that as a patient, I make sure to find someone (not just anyone) who I trust, and I make sure to be proactive in my medical care by asking questions and being involved in the decision making.

[redman]

Originally posted by TennesseeCarl

What do we get in return? Are doctors going to lower their fees? Yeah...sure. I'll believe that. Are we gonna get to actually see a doctor and spend a few minutes with 'em or will we continue to be treated as human cattle?

If anyone out there actually believes that 'tort reform' will benefit anyone other than doctors (and there's a group that desparately needs protection, no?) and insurance companies, you're dreaming.

As a citizen and a consumer of health care, I'd love to see some reform, but extending blanket immunity doesn't make a bit of sense to me. With all due respect, I don't trust health care professionals to police themselves.

I don't trust doctors to police themselves either. But that's missing the point here in a profession that's overwhelmingly manned, if you will, by people who take pride in helping others, even if they do come off a pricks sometimes.

It's the insurance companies, plain and simple. The immunity to lawsuits by HMO's who in bad faith refuse to approve necessary/appropriate medical treatment in order to save money is awful. It's no better for docs who deal with them when they always cut the doctors' medical bills, usually in the neighborhood of between 33% and 67%. So the doctor is faced with the decision to either carry out an unapproved procedure and not get paid by the insurance company, or else to refuse it and run the risk of getting sued by an injured patient. What's a doctor to do?

Tort reform isn't what's necessary here so much as insurance reform. In California around 30 years ago they passed a law called MICRA (the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act) to try to combat rising health care costs. They, among other things, capped general damages (non-monetary damages for pain and suffering) in medical malpractice cases to $250,000, an amount that they have never raised to account for inflation. But doctors' malpractice insurance premiums have continued to rise because the insurers, instead of passing along the savings that MICRA created to their insureds, simply pocketed the money and kept going about their business.

[dchogs]

thanks redman, nice to get some "inside" info. my dad is supplementing his income by being, as you so aptly put it, a defense whore. he rarely testifies, but gives his opinions to the defense before the case as to whether they should settle or fight. he makes more doing this than he does practicing medicine, if you break it down to $/hr.

[Blade]

Originally posted by TennesseeCarl

O.K. speaking as an attorney, let's say we give the doctors complete immunity from malpractice suits. We sure don't want that money going to lawyers or to the government......

As a citizen and a consumer of health care, I'd love to see some reform, but extending blanket immunity doesn't make a bit of sense to me. With all due respect, I don't trust health care professionals to police themselves.

TC, youve proven far more intelligent in your posts to think for a second that you can get away with a strawman argument. Just because you want to propose something as absurd as complete immunity for doctors doesnt mean that anyone here, including the physicians, believes in it. And just because you shoot down your own absurd proposition doesnt make any part of your arguement valid.

Show me where I said ANYTHING about "complete immunity" for anyone? And if you don't believe that reform benefits anyone but doctors and insurance companies, then why would you "love" to see some reform?

There are DAMN GOOD reasons to help EVERYONE, patient AND doctor, with tort reform. Put some of the financial responsibility on the lawyers who bring the suits, and I guarantee you that there will be far less garbage suits. Make the lawyers pay the legal bills of those that they sue when they lose, and we will stop ALL frivolous suits (not just medical-legal suits) tomorrow. This would immediately elimate the lottery-ticket mentality of those who bring these suits. Place caps on the "pain and suffering" damages that are reasonable enough to compensate the patient, but also reasonable enough to prevent the thievery that occurs by both the lawyers and the insurance companies that use the lack of caps to justify the exorbitant fees that they charge.

If you dont think that a less a adversarial atmosphere between doctor and patient WONT improve the doctor/patient relationship, you're a bitter cynic TC. Rather hypocritical for someone who is so happy to give his money to the government.

What do we get in return? Are doctors going to lower their fees? Yeah...sure. I'll believe that. Are we gonna get to actually see a doctor and spend a few minutes with 'em or will we continue to be treated as human cattle?

This is the same anger and fears that have been played on far too long. One of these days, people wont be so easily manipulated by those who want the system to stay status quo so that they can continue to steal money from hard working people.

I do NOT and WILL NOT treat my patients in a way that I do not want to be treated myself as a patient. If you're treated in any way that you dislike, its YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to do something about it. TELL THE DOCTOR when you are unhappy with the care you are getting, or go find another one that can read your mind and knows automatically how you want to be treated. I can guarantee you that there are plenty out there who deeply care about having a quality doctor-patient relationship.

If anyone out there actually believes that 'tort reform' will benefit anyone other than doctors (and there's a group that desparately needs protection, no?) and insurance companies, you're dreaming.

I have gone hundred of thousands of dollars into debt in order to get my medical education. I am 32 now and JUST STARTING my own practice. After 4 years of medical school where I was studying 80-100 hours a week, I just finished a 5 year residency where I worked 80-100 hours/week for 35-40k/year and was barely able to afford my Toyota & my rent, much less loan payments. Now, I have aproximately 10-15 years less in the job market than the average consumer, and Ive got a debt larger than many have on thier home mortgage to pay off. I have not even TRIED to get a loan for a house yet. Whatever amount of money I earn MUST be enough to allow me to make ends meet and to allow me to save for my retirement. AND it should be enough to reward my hard work and act as an incentive to bring intelligent and hard working people into the profession. Youre manipulative & cynical sarcasm isnt going to justify attacking doctors salaries in an argument when I am around.

Lastly, the rates doctors charge for services are set by the government via MEDICARE, and insurance companies establish thier levels of reimbursement to doctors based on this. There is NO SUCH THING as free market forces in any part of medicine except for purely elective and cosmetic procedures. The government and insurance companies dictate what I get paid. Furthermore, reimbursement to doctors has been cut so drastically that for most procedures I do, I am getting paid what my colleages were paid back in the EARLY 1970s.

Doctors fees have NO ROLE in this debate.

Since this has degenerated into exactly the debate I suspected it would, I am moving it to the Tailgate.....

[Blade]

Originally posted by redman

I don't trust doctors to police themselves either. But that's missing the point here in a profession that's overwhelmingly manned, if you will, by people who take pride in helping others, even if they do come off a pricks sometimes.

It's the insurance companies, plain and simple. The immunity to lawsuits by HMO's who in bad faith refuse to approve necessary/appropriate medical treatment in order to save money is awful. It's no better for docs who deal with them when they always cut the doctors' medical bills, usually in the neighborhood of between 33% and 67%. So the doctor is faced with the decision to either carry out an unapproved procedure and not get paid by the insurance company, or else to refuse it and run the risk of getting sued by an injured patient. What's a doctor to do?

Redman,

I am very much enjoying your input. I appreciate the perspective and information.

To answer your question, a doctor is to always do whats best for the patient. I am morally and ethically (and legally) obligated to do so. There are those in any profession who give it a bad name, but most of us have no clue which of our patients have no insurance, and it bares no influence on my treatment other than the medication I might select if I know they are paying out of pocket. In those circumstances, I will try to select a medication that is on generics if possible since these are almost always cheaper when you have to pay the full price.

Tort reform isn't what's necessary here so much as insurance reform. In California around 30 years ago they passed a law called MICRA (the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act) to try to combat rising health care costs. They, among other things, capped general damages (non-monetary damages for pain and suffering) in medical malpractice cases to $250,000, an amount that they have never raised to account for inflation. But doctors' malpractice insurance premiums have continued to rise because the insurers, instead of passing along the savings that MICRA created to their insureds, simply pocketed the money and kept going about their business.

Insurance reform certainly would be nice... there is little recourse for doctors and hospitals which are routinely paid far below what medicare pays, delays payment for many months, and denies payment until many hours of phone calls and letters have documented just cause for treatment 10x over. This would certainly decrease some of the burden and expense for the average doctor.

However,I still rank tort reform as more important. Tort reform similiar to that which occured in Indiana several years ago is what should be used as a national model IMHO. Not only did Indiana cap damages, but more importantly, they established a committee which oversees all malpractice cases which contains three unrelated physicians from the specialty of the doctor being sued. This committee reviews the malpractice cases, and states whether or not the case has merit or not. It should be noted that this committee can not prevent a case from going to court. However, Establishment of merit usually leads to a settlement of the case out of court, and when a case is deemed to be frivolous, it almost never proceeds to court. They have drastically reduced the number and cost of cases because of this.

BTW, Indiana has some of the lowest malpractice premiums now, and the University of Indiana is one of the most respected medical institutions in the country. There are certain forms of cancer that should NOT be treated anywhere else. So, I dont think one can argue that patients are getting substandard treatment in a state where tort reform has done nothing but help prevent frivolous cases, decrease the burden on the court even in cases where there is genuine malpractice, and keep malpractice premiums among the lowest in the country for physicians.

Oh, and still provide its residents, both doctors and patients, with adequate legal recourse AND adequate protection.

[redman]

Originally posted by Blade

To answer your question, a doctor is to always do whats best for the patient. I am morally and ethically (and legally) obligated to do so. There are those in any profession who give it a bad name, but most of us have no clue which of our patients have no insurance, and it bares no influence on my treatment other than the medication I might select if I know they are paying out of pocket. In those circumstances, I will try to select a medication that is on generics if possible since these are almost always cheaper when you have to pay the full price.

I totally agree with you. It's not a defense in a malpractice case for a doctor to say "I wasn't going to get paid if I ordered" medically appropriate/necessary treatment. They just have to suck it up and do it. Frankly, I can't leave my clients high and dry as a lawyer if they don't pay me, although all I can do is cost peopel money/legal rights. My question, "what's a doctor to do?" was rhetorical.

Originally posted by Blade

However,I still rank tort reform as more important. Tort reform similiar to that which occured in Indiana several years ago is what should be used as a national model IMHO. Not only did Indiana cap damages, but more importantly, they established a committee which oversees all malpractice cases which contains three unrelated physicians from the specialty of the doctor being sued. This committee reviews the malpractice cases, and states whether or not the case has merit or not. It should be noted that this committee can not prevent a case from going to court. However, Establishment of merit usually leads to a settlement of the case out of court, and when a case is deemed to be frivolous, it almost never proceeds to court. They have drastically reduced the number and cost of cases because of this.

BTW, Indiana has some of the lowest malpractice premiums now, and the University of Indiana is one of the most respected medical institutions in the country. There are certain forms of cancer that should NOT be treated anywhere else. So, I dont think one can argue that patients are getting substandard treatment in a state where tort reform has done nothing but help prevent frivolous cases, decrease the burden on the court even in cases where there is genuine malpractice, and keep malpractice premiums among the lowest in the country for physicians.

Oh, and still provide its residents, both doctors and patients, with adequate legal recourse AND adequate protection.

Nevada has also adopted a similar system after they were struggling to get physicians to practice in their rapidly growing state.

California doesn't have a review committee system, although plaintiffs attorneys are ethically supposed to get an affidavit from a qualified physician certifying that the case is legitimate prior to filing the lawsuit. () That of course has no teeth. The review committee system may be the way to go, although getting the various trial lawyers lobbies in liberal CA to go for that will be tough as they are always concerned about docs protecting their own when reviewing cases or testifying as experts. Besides, it's not like this state has a shortage of health care providers to spur that process given the number of teaching institutions and paying individuals.

[redman]

Originally posted by dchogs

thanks redman, nice to get some "inside" info. my dad is supplementing his income by being, as you so aptly put it, a defense whore. he rarely testifies, but gives his opinions to the defense before the case as to whether they should settle or fight. he makes more doing this than he does practicing medicine, if you break it down to $/hr.

And that's perfectly legitimate if that's as far as it goes. I don't even necessarily mind if it's only for the defense if he's going about it honestly. Peer review is one of the classic institutions of the medical profession.

What I object to are the guys who basically fall under the category "Have opinion. Will travel." Everyone knows who they are in the medical community.

I try to get reputable doctors, and I fortunately practice in a region with a lot of big medical centers and teaching hospitals. As expensive as they are, they're worth every penny to me as experts because of the insight they provide.

[TennesseeCarl]

"TC, youve proven far more intelligent in your posts to think for a second that you can get away with a strawman argument.."

Well, I was sort of hoping....

And it was a straw man, of course. I don't even practice in the area of med mal or P.I., but when lawyers or the legal system are blamed, I get a tad defensive.

BTW, Blade, I hope I wasn't coming across as making a personal attack...it wasn't. I've admired you for quite a while.

I freely admit I know nothing about the state of medicine in Pennsylvania and wouldn't begin to venture an opinion about what's happening there. But I did clerk for a court in Tennessee when I got out of law school and saw a number of med mal suits pass through. Most were dismissed because the plaintiff couldn't get another doctor to sign an affidavit that the doctor's conduct didn't comport with accepted standards of medical practice. That doesn't necessarily mean they were frivolous, though.

As is the case with most things, money...big money...has screwed things up. There are plaintiffs out there who are frauds, merely seeking big paydays. And insurance companies are surely gouging doctors (and the rest of us) claiming they are forced to assume horrific risks (when in fact we all may be paying for their unsound fiscal practices).

But the consumers of health care ought to get something in return for 'tort reform', whatever form it comes in.