Eric:
The 98,000 dead people per year from "To Err is Human" 1999, is based on extrapolated data going back to the early 1980's. Multiple sources have described seriously flaws with this study yet once again you (and every other lay journal of the last 8 years) bandies this stat around as gospel. I would think a lawyer would be a little more interested in the truth. Does the $$$ have your tongue?
 

The study was done by the National Institutes for Health. I have not seen anything that debunks the study, nor have you linked to anything. Here is the link to the study, To Err Is Human, which folks can read for themselves.

--ET
 

No Eric once again you are wrong the IOM is NOT part of of the NIH. Once again you show yourself as totally clueless. How about you do a little research (you know what that is right?). Take the below pasted line from the summary and figure out when the data is extrapolated from. Then you will have an idea as what an idiot you sound like.

"When extrapolated to the over 33.6 million admissions to U.S. hospitals in 1997, the results of the study in Colorado and Utah imply that at least 44,000 Americans die each year as a result of medical errors"
 

The link was provided to both the law review article and the study, so I don't know why you are complaining. But this is from the executive summary of the report:

When extrapolated to the over 33.6 million admissions to U.S. hospitals in 1997, the results of the study in Colorado and Utah imply that at least 44,000 Americans die each year as a result of medical errors. The results of the New York Study suggest the number may be as high as 98,000. Even when using the lower estimate, deaths due to medical errors exceed the number attributable to the 8th-leading cause of death. More people die in a given year as a result of medical errors than from motor vehicle accidents (43,458), breast cancer (42,297), or AIDS (16,516).

As I said earlier, I have never seen anything that debunks this study. Nor have you provided any links to debunk the study. Personal attacks are not a substitute.

--ET
 

Eric:
A: Once again this is not an NIH report (I noticed how you ignored that).
2: The "extraplation" was from studies in the EARLY 1980's. Tell me how much has law changed since 1982? That may give you an idea how much medicine has changed since 1982. Besides the fact unlike those of us in the field you are not interested in improving medical treatment (which clearly does have problems as I can tell you first hand) rather profiting from real or supposed errors.
3: Please review the NEJM and JAMA in 2000 for a wealth of discussion (with references) about the problems with the IOM report.
4: You have made a career of personal attacks so I won't lose any sleep over your BS.
 

Dear Anonymous,

As you profess first hand knowledge of medical treatment problems, what type of Dr. are you?

Your personal animus towards Mr. Turkewitz shows you are not impartial on the subject of medical malpractice.

Even where a Dr. has negligently committed harm to a patient, it doesn't appear you would willingly acknowledge fault, or ever help a lawyer seeking justice on behalf of the wronged patient and/or family.

Doesn't your hippocratic oath extend to helping patients who have been injured through malpractice?
 

T/J:
You are putting words in my mouth and you know it. If you are truly for truth and justice, wouldn't you want to know the flaws of a study? My issue with Mr Turkowitz is he quotes a study that:
A: He doesn't know where it comes from (ie. it is NOT the NIH).
B: He has no understanding of the discussions that were carried out in medical literature right after the study came out including potential flaws (ie. "extrapolating early 1980's data)
C: His reason for quoting the study is not to bring up concerns about medical practice (which there are) but to feather his own nest.

There is little coorelation between true malpractice and lawsuits. If you truly want to set up a system in which the injured are compensated, bad docs are reprimanded, and frivilous suits are stopped, than a clear way of doing it is with medical courts in conjunction with state medical boards consisting of doctors, laypeople, AND medically educated lawyers/judges to evaluate the record/evidence in an unbiased and educated way. But ole eric here would never support this idea. Why? because he wouldn't make the big bucks skimming of 40% of every win.
 

Agreed and well said anon 7:15. However, Medical courts will never be allowed in this country. Why? Because the lawyer's make the laws in this country. Period.
 

Tell me how much has law changed since 1982?

Not too much. For malpractice you still have to prove:
1. A departure from customary and usual practice (mere errors of judgment are insufficient);

2. That the departure was a substantial cause of injury;

3. That the injury was substantial enough to warrant taking an expensive, complex case with low legal fees.

You have made a career of personal attacks

I don't engage in that in my daily interactions, in the courtroom or on the web. You have apparently confused me with someone else.

He has no understanding of the discussions that were carried out in medical literature right after the study came out including potential flaws (ie. "extrapolating early 1980's data)

I indicated earlier that you should feel free to link to any article that debunks the study. Instead, you asked me to do work for you by going to look for it. Sorry, I've other things to do than do studies on your behalf. You have not shown any reason that extrapolating data in a study is bad science.

There is little coorelation between true malpractice and lawsuits.

I recently posted on a study here that shows otherwise.

If you truly want to set up a system in which the injured are compensated, bad docs are reprimanded, and frivilous suits are stopped, than a clear way of doing it is with medical courts in conjunction with state medical boards consisting of doctors, laypeople, AND medically educated lawyers/judges to evaluate the record/evidence in an unbiased and educated way.


1. Med mal cases are already assigned to the most experienced judges.

2. A version of medical courts was tried in the 80s in New York, with doctors forming part of a three-person panel (doctor, judge, med mal attorney). If there was more than one specialty, there was more than one doctor. They heard presentations without witnesses, and if the panel finding was unanimous, the jury would hear about it. It resulted in years-long delays due to a lack of doctors willing to participate, and since the panel didn't hear testimony, they were unable to resolve disputed issues of fact. It was finally disbanded as a failure.

But ole eric here would never support this idea. Why? because he wouldn't make the big bucks skimming of 40% of every win.

New York has some of the lowest legal fees in the nation, starting at 30% and scaling down to 10% as the amount of recovery increases. As a result of this, the medical community has immunity from all smaller malpractice cases because they cannot be justified on financial grounds.

--ET
 

1: According to who? You? Well there is an unbiased source. Besides does and "experinced attorney mean he/she is knowledgable of medicine?

2: " A version of medical courts was tried in the 80s in New York, with doctors forming part of a three-person panel (doctor, judge, med mal attorney..."

Eric this is NOT a version of medical courts. This is a precertification panel. Please do actually try to read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.

Your lack of honesty and calculated misdirection is amzaing though not surprising.
 

Hey ET
The doc anon is kicking your butt. Why don't you quit while you are behind.
 

Eric this is NOT a version of medical courts. This is a precertification panel. Please do actually try to read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.

If there were insufficient numbers of doctors to participate in the limited panel system (where the hearings generally lasted an hour at most), which lead to years-long delays, I don't know why you think doctors would suddenly become available for a trial that could last 2-3 weeks.

--ET
 

Eric yet again READ WHAT I WROTE.


"....than a clear way of doing it is with medical courts in conjunction with state medical boards consisting..."

Medical boards have the ability to make this a mandatory requirement of docs. We are licensed by these organizations. My board requires 40 hours CME per year...period. Besides, I think you would be surprised that docs would gladly serve on these "medical courts" once they realized the information is being evualated in a comprehensive, nonbiased, and systimatic way. You know as well as I do that today's "expert witnesses" tailor their language based on who is paying their bill. Before you write back on this, tell me , when is the last time you put an expert witness on the stand that refuted your case? This system is not anything close to what we can best do for doctor's or truly wronged patients. The only one's who win are you and your ilk.
 

Medical boards have the ability to make this a mandatory requirement of docs.

The doctors in New York made it abundantly clear they didn't want to spend their time doing this, which is why we had years of delays in cases just for the panels. You are suggesting something with zero chance of logistical success.

Moreover, you can't force someone to be unbiased.

And that is before you even deal with the constitutional issues of trying to amend the Bill of Rights to strip away the right to trial by jury in such an action.

when is the last time you put an expert witness on the stand that refuted your case?

Pretty silly question, since if I don't have an expert I'm not bringing the case.

--ET
 

No eric, doctors in New York are not interested in partaking in a farce. Now if they were offered real options that would be a different story. My own state had a "non-binding" expert panel. Which basically meant that the panel was worthless and was ignored. Once again read what I wrote. I am not talking about expert panels.

"You can't force somebody to be unbiased" What an utterly idiotic statement. Let me get this straight the present system IN WHICH YOU PAY SOMEONE FOR THEIR TESTIMONY, is a better, less biased system than one devised where the expert is beholden to the court. Only a med mal attorney would believe that load of horse manure.

"when is the last time you put an expert witness on the stand that refuted your case?"

That you think it is a "silly question" shows you are more interested in getting a win (ie $$$) than the truth. I am not surprised.
 

Once again read what I wrote. I am not talking about expert panels.

I did read it. And if docs couldn't spare a few hours for the panels, then they aren't going to spare a couple weeks for some kind of medical court.

"You can't force somebody to be unbiased" What an utterly idiotic statement. Let me get this straight the present system IN WHICH YOU PAY SOMEONE FOR THEIR TESTIMONY, is a better, less biased system than one devised where the expert is beholden to the court.

You have suggested some kind of medical court, which you didn't define except to say it should be mandatory for physicians. But presuming this places doctors as judges or jurors over other doctors, it forces them to be unbiased because they become the finders of fact. And you can't force humans to be unbiased. Some are, and some aren't, and some don't know.

You have inexplicably confused the very different functions of witnesses and judges.

--ET
 

I never stated doctors should act as judges and jurors. Doctors should act as unbiased expert witnesses for the court. We can argue about the semantics of bias. But this is the fact, if you pay someone for their testimony (like you do eric) than they are a heck of a lot more biased than someone acting at the discretion of the court. That you are even trying to argue this point shows how totally "biased" you are about the subject. I am sorry eric you are part of the problem. Other system's as stated above would be better for patient's AND doctors, but not you. That is in reality the point isn't it.
 

Doctors should act as unbiased expert witnesses for the court.

You still haven't shown how you can force doctors to be unbiased, when clearly many of them aren't if a review of the postings at this blog and various medical blogs is any indication.

And you still haven't explained how you can force them to give up their time to be experts if they weren't willing to do so when panels were tried.

And you don't explain why,if you think this should be mandatory, every doctor qualifies as an expert when clearly some shouldn't even have a degree. The idea that we would try to force all lawyers, or all engineers, or all accountants to be experts is bizarre, since some are good and some are not. Same with physicians.

Thus far, you have not presented anything resembling an alternative system of fair ajudication that would actually work in practice.

--ET
 

Here's a link to the NEJM May 11, 2006 article,"Claims, Errors and Compensation Payments in Medical Malpractice Litigation"
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/articles/litigation.pdf
 

nice pissing match.