As my final thoughts; We do need malpractice attorneys. They perform a valuable service to patients, not just the financial reparations to "make the patient whole" but also to constantly pressure "health entities" to make us safer, to make these entities more responsive to patients and to convince them that it's in their best interests to follow the law, and do their job to the best of their abilities. Without lawsuits there is nothing to prevent medical practitioners from doing whatever they want without fear of repercussions. Jail is a huge deterrent to me. It makes me obey the law. What if there were no consequences? Trust me, I would be speeding around in my Mustang. I would put everybody at risk with my driving, even though I feel that I am an ace driver and that *I* can control my car under any circumstance. Ditto with medical people. If there is no deterrent, then what is to stop them? It's not like we can lock up doctors that perform badly! The only recourse is financial, and we patients need this in order to police the health entities. There really is no other way at this time. Come up with some mediation, or something like it to address grievances! Maybe doctors would rather be put in jail for infractions and deviations from the law, just like the rest of us?
What the doctor is trying to say is the evidence points to personal animus as motivating most malpractice claims. Such a motive is an improper motive and represent lawyer malpractice if it is the real reason for the lawsuit, and the alleged deviation from standards of care and its alleged harm is just a legal pretext. ( Really? Why would the patient have personal animus toward the doctor? Unless said doctor was an arrogant, egotistical, totally nasty customer, who harmed the patient by an alleged deviation from standard of care? I personally don't give a damn if my doctor is most socially inept person on the planet as long as he gets the job done PROPERLY!) The filing of such a retaliatory claim is an improper use of a civil procedure and itself a tort. The subject of anger should be deeply explored in any patient and family deposition. ( This assumes that the patient and/or family are NEVER EVER harmed by a physician. Patients must not, under any circumstances, become angry about their treatment at the hands of a so-called healer.) Then the doctor should file a countersuit against the lawyer, the plaintiff and any family member who encouraged the claim. ( That's right, rich arrogant doctors should attempt to ruin anybody who takes exception to their sub standard care! Oh, sorry, ALLEGED sub standard care!) An attempt should be made to get an injunction from a higher court against any judge allowing such venomous (VENOMOUS? omG This whole rant smacks of venom.) claims to proceed beyond first pleading to dismiss. (Note that he wants to SUE THE JUDGE as well!)
The overwhelming majority, perhaps up to 80%, of medmal claims are weak claims. (According to whose standard? YOURS?) They fail at every stage of litigation. The innocent ( According to whom?) doctor should not settle, and should consider countersuing the lawyer predator. To deter. (In order to be able to practice medicine and be immune from any liability at all? Are you kidding me? What exactly would this accomplish? Doesn't the doctor make enough money, now he wants to sue the patient, the patients family, the judge, and the lawyer. Can we say predator doctor?)
Because there is a first duty to survive and to stay open, the cover up is the most common response to medical error. (According to the AMA, the first duty is to the patient, not to survive and stay open. I have that elsewhere on this blog. Also, how can there be a cover up, if there is never a just reason to sue for malpractice? All patients, their families, their lawyer, the judge who goes forward with the case are just on a mission to attack an innocent party right? So what is there to cover up?) All investigational material will be subject to discovery and may ruin the health entity. (Sounds to me like the "health entity" is already ruined if this persons remarks are any indication.) One may conclude that these weak, hate filled, retaliatory lawsuits (Wow! As a patient I feel so safe being viewed like this!) result in the shut down of investigations into systemic improvements that would eliminate medical errors. (What might that be? Without some means of bringing justice to injured patients, what's to stop medical injuries? Why would a "health entity" try to make systemic improvements in the absence of any means of forcing them to self examine? There would be absolutely NO incentive to protect patients would there?)
Every preventable medical error may therefore be caused by the medical malpractice lawyer, with no exceptions. (Sorry this makes no sense whatsoever. The lawyer wasn't wielding the drugs, scalpel or whatever the problem was, they are necessary to help patients rein in medical practitioners and seek JUSTICE. Complaints about medical injury are the reason behind medical malpractice, ergo, if we can prevent patients from complaining about their treatment, there will be no more medical injuries? All righty then.)