am I going to easily lose as a healthcare practitioner?

[frapframe949]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NY

I am a healthcare practitioner in the state of NY and have had claims filed against me by multiple patients. These claims have been going on for about four years so far and no progress has been made.

What really worries me is that the plaintiffs submitted bills of particulars that includes every single perceivable injury and a long list of actions they think I committed ( many of which are not true ), asks for millions of dollars to make the suits go away, and expert witnesses who are willing to say everything opposite in regards to the standards of care.

Now, in all honesty, I'm sure my own attorneys and expert witnesses will also make exaggerations to match the ante.

The judges and court staff do not know the plaintiffs and are obviously not knowledgeable about the practice of medicine. It's just the plaintiffs' words vs the defendants with no one to intervene as to who is telling the truth or not.

Really, how am I supposed to protect myself? Regardless of merits in a malpractice case, it seems as if plaintiffs definitely have the upper hand because they have nothing to lose and no one to screen their allegations. How can the plaintiffs really ever lose in cases like this? And why even bother to establish the standard of care? Is it true that medical defendants will at least have to pay something even if they were not negligent?

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NY

I am a healthcare practitioner in the state of NY and have had claims filed against me by multiple patients. These claims have been going on for about four years so far and no progress has been made.

What really worries me is that the plaintiffs submitted bills of particulars that includes every single perceivable injury and a long list of actions they think I committed ( many of which are not true ), asks for millions of dollars to make the suits go away, and expert witnesses who are willing to say everything opposite in regards to the standards of care.

Now, in all honesty, I'm sure my own attorneys and expert witnesses will also make exaggerations to match the ante.

The judges and court staff do not know the plaintiffs and are obviously not knowledgeable about the practice of medicine. It's just the plaintiffs' words vs the defendants with no one to intervene as to who is telling the truth or not.

Really, how am I supposed to protect myself? Regardless of merits in a malpractice case, it seems as if plaintiffs definitely have the upper hand because they have nothing to lose and no one to screen their allegations. How can the plaintiffs really ever lose in cases like this? And why even bother to establish the standard of care? Is it true that medical defendants will at least have to pay something even if they were not negligent?

The way any healthcare practitioner protects him/herself is through medical malpractice insurance coverage and by not screwing up.

In any case, it will be plaintiffs and their proof versus defendants and their proofs. Plaintiffs only have the "upper hand" if their proofs support their case against the defendants better than the defendants proofs support their case against the plaintiffs' claims.

The majority of lawsuits will settle before trial to contain the costs but no one walks away from a lawsuit without paying something.

 

[LdiJ]

The way any healthcare practitioner protects him/herself is through medical malpractice insurance coverage and by not screwing up.

In any case, it will be plaintiffs and their proof versus defendants and their proofs. Plaintiffs only have the "upper hand" if their proofs support their case against the defendants better than the defendants proofs support their case against the plaintiffs' claims.

The majority of lawsuits will settle before trial to contain the costs but no one walks away from a lawsuit without paying something.

To clarify...

Many times your malpractice insurance lawyers will choose to settle a case for something rather than go through the cost/risk of a trial. How long it drags on and how much they are willing to settle for depends on a whole hosts of factors. Sometimes the settlement has little to do with actual facts, but whether or not the cost of proving the actual facts will be greater than the cost of a settlement.

At the same time plaintiff attorneys will also often urge a settlement at less than could be received at trial, because the cost to the plaintiff's attorneys to take it to trial could be greater than their share of the settlement.

 

[frapframe949]

Ok so from what I gather, the moral of the story is that: defendants will lose to at least some degree even if proper care was met, except maybe if the plaintiffs retained a sub-par lawyer.

Wow. I didn't know it was that dangerous to become a healthcare provider.

 

[quincy]

Ok so from what I gather, the moral of the story is that: defendants will lose to at least some degree even if proper care was met, except maybe if the plaintiffs retained a sub-par lawyer.

Wow. I didn't know it was that dangerous to become a healthcare provider.

This country has lost a lot of good doctors, especially obstetricians, because it is so costly to insure against the possibility of a lawsuit.

We are a litigious bunch.