When Patients Go to War with Doctors Over “Failed” Procedures, Here’s How Doctors Win…

Medical Justice provides consultations to doctors facing medico-legal obstacles. We have solutions for doctor-patient conflicts, unwarranted demands for refunds, online defamation (patient review mischief), meritless litigation, and a gazillion other issues. We also provide counsel specific to COVID-19. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a consultation – or use the tool shared below.

In 1982, The United Kingdom and Argentina fought a short war over the Falkland Islands. The UK held the Falklands, a remote territory, since 1831. Because of a long-standing territorial claim, Argentina’s president ordered an invasion. Two months later, the British retook the territory. The death toll was 649 Argentine and 258 British servicemen. And 3 Falklands Island civilians. There were 1,188 Argentine and 777 British non-fatal casualties. 

The population of the Falkland Islands in 2016 was estimated to be 3,400. 

The author Jorge Luis Borges characterized the Falklands War as a fight between two bald men over a comb. 

In less colorful terms, the value of the asset which instigated the conflict was less than the cost of fighting the fight. 

In healthcare, particularly in cash pay fields, it is not uncommon for disputes to arise over money, resulting in a conflict consuming more “resources” than the amount of money in dispute.  

A classic example: A plastic surgeon performs some procedure – say a facelift. The outcome is pretty good. Is it perfect? No. But, most of this surgeon’s colleagues would agree it was done at or above the standard of care. The patient is dissatisfied. The surgeon says he’ll be happy to do a revision where he waives his professional fee. The patient says, “No dice.” She wants her money back. 

A line in the sand is drawn. The doctor has given the patient a reasonable option to resolve the dilemma. The patient reciprocates, arguing only one solution is possible. Tender a full refund.  

The surgeon feels this is not right. He managed expectations, did a reasonable job, gave the patient options, and now the patient wants it all for free. On principle, this seems wrong. 

Such conflicts can consume a great deal of emotional bandwidth within a practice.  

The unhappy patient often makes a lot of noise. Demanding time from staff. Sometimes in a loud voice. Sometimes with name-calling and profanity. Such nastiness spills over to the Internet.  

In purely rational terms, the amount of effort containing the contagion seems greater than just accommodating the patient. 

Here’s one solution that often breaks the impasse. It allows for a third path. What the surgeon is hearing is that the patient wants her money back. What she may actually be saying is that she does not want the surgeon to keep the money. While those statements seem the same, they are not.  

If the surgeon proposes donating that sum of money to a third-party charity, and the patient accepts that resolution, each side might benefit. The surgeon will not feel he was extorted. Plus, a worthy charity will receive needed funds. It’s hard not to feel good about that. And the patient will believe she won her battle.  

Plus, the conflict will be over. 

And the damage will be far less than the Falklands War. 

What do you think? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below. Medical Justice works with doctors to neutralize such conflicts. Use the tool below to schedule a consultation with our Founder and CEO, Jeff Segal, MD, JD – or schedule a consultation by visiting our booking page.

Medical Justice provides consultations to doctors facing medico-legal obstacles. We have solutions for doctor-patient conflicts, unwarranted demands for refunds, online defamation (patient review mischief), meritless litigation, and a gazillion other issues. We also provide counsel specific to COVID-19. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a consultation – or use the tool shared below.

Learn how Medical Justice can protect you from medico-legal mayhem… 

Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD

Chief Executive Officer and Founder

Dr. Jeffrey Segal, Chief Executive Officer and Founder of Medical Justice, is a board-certified neurosurgeon. Dr. Segal is a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons; the American College of Legal Medicine; and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. He is also a member of the North American Spine Society. In the process of conceiving, funding, developing, and growing Medical Justice, Dr. Segal has established himself as one of the country’s leading authorities on medical malpractice issues, counterclaims, and internet-based assaults on reputation.

Dr. Segal was a practicing neurosurgeon for approximately ten years, during which time he also played an active role as a participant on various state-sanctioned medical review panels designed to decrease the incidence of meritless medical malpractice cases.

Dr. Segal holds a M.D. from Baylor College of Medicine, where he also completed a neurosurgical residency. Dr. Segal served as a Spinal Surgery Fellow at The University of South Florida Medical School. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa as well as the AOA Medical Honor Society. Dr. Segal received his B.A. from the University of Texas and graduated with a J.D. from Concord Law School with highest honors.

In 2000, he co-founded and served as CEO of DarPharma, Inc, a biotechnology company in Chapel Hill, NC, focused on the discovery and development of first-of-class pharmaceuticals for neuropsychiatric disorders.

Dr. Segal is also a partner at Byrd Adatto, a national business and health care law firm. Byrd Adatto was selected as a Best Law Firm in the 2021 edition of the “Best Law Firms” list by U.S. News – Best Lawyers. With decades of combined experience in serving doctors, dentists, and other providers, Byrd Adatto has a national pedigree to address most legal issues that arise in the business and practice of medicine.