The Ramifications & Implications of the IL Supreme Court Decision

The ramifications of the Illinois Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn caps on malpractice suits are clear. Frivolous malpractice suits will increase. Physicians will be discouraged from practicing medicine within that state. And access to health care providers for the people of Illinois will be restricted because off this decision. Medical Malpractice rates will increase, and the costs of healthcare will go back up. Bad as that is, the implications of that decision may be even more devastating.

Our society’s rule is a rule of Law. The Illinois state medical malpractice judgment cap law wasn’t instituted until 2005. There will still be consequences, of course, but it’s within keeping of the separation of powers for a law to be repealed by a Supreme Court shortly after it has been enacted. It’s not a question of whether they can do it, but if they should. It’s still the less than unanimous decision of the IL SC that is overriding the will of their entire legislature, presumably representing the will of the People. One would expect the Supreme Court to tread more lightly, in absence of a matter of prejudice. Yet their decision seems to support prejudice. Jackpot trial lawyers aren’t filing frivolous suits against indigent people. They’re going after doctors, based on the prejudicial (and erroneous) notion that they can afford to be taken to the cleaners. They may claim that it’s protecting the citizen’s right to redress in civil court, but the law didn’t cap the actual total of the suit, only awards for noneconomic damages. $500,000 in cases against doctors and $1 million against hospitals seems more than ample for the patient’s trouble, pain, suffering, etc.

Read more

Electronic Records and Malpractice Risks

Will electronic records raise the legal standard of care and increase malpractice risk? Originally published in HCPLive.com by Robert J. Mintz, JD As EHRs are widely adopted and the quantity of information about a patient expands dramatically, does provider liability increase even if the quality of care is vastly improved? Will electronic records raise the … Read more

Apology Laws: A Variety of Approaches to Discussing Adverse

American Health Lawyers Association November 2009, Vol 13, Issue 11 By: Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, FACS; Michael J. Sacopulos, JD © 2009 American Health Lawyers Association Suite 600, 1025 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-5405 Phone: 202-833-1100 Fax: 202-833-1105 Download ahla_and_im_sorry_laws_AC_Nov09

Anything For a Buck! “The following illustrates why members of the public may hold cynical views of the legal profession.”

A recent case that appeared before New York Supreme Court Justice Emily Jane Goodman demonstrates the true motive, method and means behind plaintiff attorneys and lawsuits.

For background; a patient, Victoria Kremen, had a double mastectomy after an alleged misdiagnosis of breast cancer. She hired a law firm to sue the physician, but the case was dismissed because the law firm she hired apparently missed the deadline for filing within the 2.5 year statute of limitations. Then the patient sued the law firm for malpractice, in that they missed the filing date.

Originally she was awarded judgment, but lost on appeal. In that ruling, the judge stated that she had not diligently pursued her own medical malpractice claim. So the suit against the law firm was dismissed. But wait, it gets better! The law firm then counter-sued the patient, asking for $6,000 in fees, amounts billable to the case that they lost. Justice Goodman heard the case. Her ruling includes “The following illustrates why members of the public may hold cynical views of the legal profession.” She went on to categorize the case against their former client as “nonsensical and frivolous”. Thank you, Justice Goodman.

Read more

Latest Posts from Our Blog