In many ways, the hospital system in America is set up mirroring our government. They are similar in the way that checks and balances have been set in place to ensure the best possible care is delivered to patients. With these checks and balances there are three main bodies; the governing board, medical staff, and executive management (Showalter, 2017). The duties and responsibilities of each body many times is to oversee and continually check the others. A prime example of this system can be seen through the case of Moore v. The Board of Trustees of Carson-Tahoe Hospital, which took place in Nevada and was heard before the Supreme Court of the state in 1972 (Moore v. Board of Trustees of Carson-Tahoe Hospital, 1972). Specifically, in this case, the duty of the governing board to “exercise reasonable care in selecting and retaining medical staff” is questioned in contrast with the right of the physician to have “due process… when disciplinary action is taken” (Showalter, 2017). In hopes of changing a decision by the governing board, and attempting to reverse the decision of a lower court, the appellant, Dr. Moore, brought the case against Carson-Tahoe Hospital (Moore v. Board of Trustees of Carson-Tahoe Hospital, 1972).
The ATRA and CALA are trying to stop minor cases from receiving enormous sums of money which will dampen the economy. The subject matter of these cases varies to some length including but not limited to medical and car insurance. In a case against Rich Mountain Nursing and Rehabilitation Center of Mena, jurors found the defendant, Mena, guilty of malpractice in the death of Margaretha Sauer, a ninety-three year old woman. The non-economic punitive damages cash award for the suffering and pain of the Sauer family to be paid by Mena was seventy-eight million dollars. Punitive damages is one of the issues that the ATRA is trying to combat. If nursing homes continue to have pay large sums for punitive damages, they will not be able to survive. The premium average liability offered by nursing homes has increased from $820,000 in 1999 to $11.6 million in 2001. With the liability premiums continuing to rise, the prospects of profits continue to dwindle. They will have no chance at retaining a profit and thus will have to close. It will also mean that doctors will charge more for their services, which leads to fewer health insurances carrying
In the last four years New York City taxpayers have paid out approximately $1 billion in awards for personal injury actions. Well over half of that amount was attributable to “pain and suffering,” a highly subjective and amorphous concept, as opposed to economic damages such as lost earnings or medical expenses. Of the total amount paid, 33 to 40 percent went to attorneys in the form of contingency fees or to experts or other in reimbursements for expenses. In FY 1977 the City’s total payout in tort actions was less than $25 million compared to $120 million in FY 1987 a mere ten year difference, and a staggering $282 million for FY 1996. Would you believe half of that money could have been used to hire 2,800 police officers or over 3,600 teachers? The time for corrective legislative action for New York has come.
A great reform proposal is listed on page 335, it's about limiting damage awards. The state would limit the amount of damages that can be awarded in a medical
This research paper is being submitted on March 3th, 2013, for Milo Sampson’s M230/HSC2641 Section 04 - Medical Law and Ethics class.
Tort reform, being one of those platforms, is proposed as one solution to the rapidly increasing health care cost in the United States. Careful reform of medical malpractice laws can lower administrative costs and health spending. This will also lead to improved patient safety and steer physicians away from the costly practice of defensive medicine.
In the article “Despite Counsel, Victim Is Hindered by tort laws.” The author Becca Aaronson, explains that sometimes tort laws may not feel fair. Connie Spears is just an ordinary woman who went to the Emergency because she felt some pain in her legs which she told the hospital she is known to have blood clots but, after being checked by the doctors they sent her home with a minor diagnoses. Just a short few days later she ended up in a different hospital with serious illness that caused her to loose both of her legs. She then filed a medical malpractice law suit but, she had to produce adequate expert reports within 120 days of filing their cases or she will be ordered to pay the defendants court fees. Connie Spears argues that
Medical malpractice, the negligence of a health professional in diagnosing, treating, and or caring for a patient, is a specific tort law under the negligence torts. In the medical field, the tort reform has affected many people including doctors, lawyers, insurance company owners and workers, patients, and including other citizens. While large corporations, doctors, and other defendants are benefitting from caps on damages, that is limiting the amount of money that can be granted in court, plaintiffs, lawyers, and citizens are affected differently. Doctor Sage stated in an interview that he has, “never felt that caps on damages had a major effect on patients one way or the other” (“Could Malpractice”). This remark makes those injured question about
Tort reform has intense arguments to both sides and creates a myriad of concerns. On one side of the tort reform movement, defendants such as corporations and medical professionals want limits on the damages awarded to the plaintiff. The benefit of tort reform for defendant is the financial savings. However, a cap placed on medical malpractice cases and other cases that are of negligence would standardize the monetary compensation regardless of the damage. In my opinion, Medical malpractice tort reform is a gray area, for each breach of the standard of care involves a different story and person, therefore the damages vary and should be evaluated fairly. In this essay, both sides of the argument are discussed, with a focus on medical malpractice tort reform.
From a personal standpoint I believe that the excessiveness of litigation is hurting the field of healthcare due to the affects in many different areas. It reduces access that patients need. Due to the misuse and disloyal antics of people making false accusations to self gain we will continue to see a rise in healthcare. I do not feel that all accusations are false, but I do believe that litigation has become successful due to dishonesty. In order for there to be financial distress for us all as a country we must flow diligently with each other. From a malpractice standpoint they need to ensure that their patients are taken care of to the best of their ability and that they are taking the precautions needed to ensure no
This proceeding before a Medical Review Panel, pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. §§ 40:1299.41, et seq., is brought by Jimmy Martinez against multiple health care providers, including Dr. Mark Kappelman, a qualified health care provider entitled to have the claim filed against him reviewed by this Panel. The claims made against Dr. Kappelman are mere allegations without support and proof. In a medical malpractice case the burden of proof is on the claimant to establish that Dr. Mark Kappelman’s actions in this matter fell below the standard of care required of similar health care providers. The claimant also bears the burden of proving whether any such alleged act or acts of negligence caused any injuries. It is the duty of the
The Plaintiffs felt that since the hospital was licensed and accredited that they should be held responsible for their employees and their actions. It states in the regulations that any infraction of the bylaws imposes liability for the injury. At any time if Dr. Alexander had questions or concerns he could have reached out to an expert in this field to consult
Further, Professor Baker at the University of Pennsylvania posited that we have the same number of claims today as in the late 1980s. In addition, reforms actually make it more difficult for victims to prove their cases. Furthermore, due to the cap on financial awards, most of the time, it costs victims a large sum of money to pursue the case and end up spending more on expense than the reward. Currently, according to Doroshow (2009), there are more liability protection for the medical profession than any other profession in the nation. The reforms actually offer Healthcare giants more protection by limiting tort actions and compensatory damages. For example, a Milwaukee woman was awarded $25.3 million in tort damages after losing all four limbs due to doctor negligence. Interestingly, Wisconsin law has a non-economic damage limit of $750,000, therefore the defense attorneys will likely ask for the award to be lowered to that amount (Spivak, 2014). Two vastly different example; however, the latter clearly demonstrated the reasonableness of the award—thus, reform is necessary, but a greater examination of special clauses may be in order to offset the
The moral philosophies each have their perspectives on moral act when it comes to others well- being. When an organization is operating in a safe and responsible manner, then there is nothing to fear. (HG.org., 2015). However, when negligence comes in play, then there is a red flag. Organizations should be operating at their highest potential and keeping their customer, clients, and patients in mind in order to continue without the fear of a lawsuit. The “frivolous actions,” are what some people express to those who are attempting to obtain any financial benefits from the negligence is sad. The tort reform is unfair to the people that are harmed and some of the injuries may be permanent and painful. Moreover, this violates the person’s constitutional rights and the tort law placing caps on the amount sets the boundaries to the ruling of the jury. An organization who makes the defective product or the physician who caused the pain, should be responsible for compensation for their wrongdoing or malpractice. With this, it could assist other organizations to practice the business without causing harm to their customers, clients, and
It is this author’s belief that no entities should stand in the way of an individual’s right to seek counsel, regardless of outcome. The ramifications of not suing a HMO could demonstrate no evidence to support efforts to amend the current law, and without legal documents demonstrating the consequences related to denial of care, the rights of patients, to ensure a safe and effective health care, according to standards of practice, may be compromised.