Medical Justice provides free 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 free consultation – or use the tool shared below.

The state of Pennsylvania is experiencing a shift in malpractice law. We’ve written about a phenomenon in the past where legislation implemented in California eventually became the standard nationwide. Will we see the same play out in Pennsylvania? Hard to say. But doctors in all states should take note in case these laws manifest in their backyards.    

Here’s what’s changing – and a little bit of history to give this color…   

Before 2003, plaintiffs in Pennsylvania could file malpractice claims in any county in the state. In 2003, the law changed, and plaintiffs could only file malpractice claims in the county where the alleged harm took place.   

A brief examination of med-mal statistics from the early 2000s reveals the problem Pennsylvania was attempting to solve.    

Between 2000 and 2003, court stats reveal the Philadelphia jurisdiction issued “407 of the 1,144 verdicts involving medical malpractice. Of those 407 cases, 58 ended with payouts between $1 million and $5 million; 16 had payouts between $5 million and $10 million, and 9 had payouts of more than $10 million.” Plaintiff’s lawyers followed Willie Sutton’s mantra, paraphrased as ”Follow the money.”  

Legal experiments began in 2002 to control the situation, limiting lawsuits to the counties where the alleged harm occurred. The changes mostly worked as intended – in 2019, there were 78 med mal verdicts, with 17 in Philadelphia.   

Back to the present.   

In early August, Pennsylvania reversed that nearly two-decade-old precedent: Starting in January 2023, plaintiffs can once again file malpractice claims in any county in the state, regardless of where the alleged harm occurred.  

Pennsylvania trial lawyers have advocated for this change since the original law was adopted two decades ago, arguing that it left plaintiffs in rural areas at a disadvantage since those counties are (generally) perceived less friendly to med-mal claims.    

Critics believe the revision encourages “venue-shopping”, a practice where lawsuits are more likely to be filed in jurisdictions where juries statistically pay higher payouts. Plaintiffs follow the money. “Venue-shopping” often causes insurance rates to increase in the affected jurisdictions, making the regions less appealing to doctors and creating underserved communities. Once upon a time, Philadelphia was at risk of becoming such a community. 

To quote our source directly… 

“Venue-shopping was found to be one of the key causes … in the liability crisis that doctors, and hospitals faced in the late 1990s and early 2000s,” said Curt Schroder, a onetime state legislator who now is the executive director for the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, a statewide association representing the health care and business industries. “The danger here is that history will repeat itself.” 

Those in favor of the change argue med-mal trials are often held in regions where a hospital is the largest employer, which puts their clients at a serious disadvantage, as most of the jurors are either employed by the hospital or related to a person who is employed by the hospital. 

“Plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases shouldn’t be limited by venue rules while the defendant enjoys a home-field advantage,” Kila Baldwin — president of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice, which represents trial lawyers in the state — said in a statement. “The new rule levels the playing field and will improve access to justice for all Pennsylvanians.” 

Some fear these revisions will scare healthcare professionals away from underserved communities or cause communities with an already diminishing physician population to become underserved more rapidly. 20 years ago, doctors practicing in certain regions of Pennsylvania complained that the cost of insuring themselves was too high and threatened to exit – thus the changes that occurred in the early 2000s. After 20 years, the scales tipped in the opposite direction.   

These changes won’t take effect until January 2023, and it isn’t likely the state will know how it impacts Pennsylvania doctors until at least one year later. But the data from the early 2000s doesn’t paint a favorable picture. We’re curious to see how long it will take for the metronome to swing in the opposite direction. We hope it doesn’t clock too many doctors on its return trip.  

What do you think? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.  

Medical Justice provides free 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 free consultation – or use the tool shared below.

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 over 50 combined years of 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.