- Email: [email protected]
Solving the litigation problem
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR J Oral Maxlllofac 43:924.
Surg
1985
slowly degrading the legal profession in the eyes of the public, the health-care industry, and the ethical practitioners of law. It is indeed unfortunate that the reputation of the legal profession is so often degraded by a few who ignore or twist the law for a contingency fee. To restore the sense of dignity to both the health-care and legal professions, and to restore a sense of trust between both professions and the public, reform is mandatory. In malpractice cases, probable cause should be substantiated by a competent expert. A competent expert should be one who is recognized as such, is ethical, and is practicing in the same general geographic area as the plaintiff. The attorney should be charged with investigating and examining the facts as they present, with expert advice, prior to proceeding with an action. Proceeding with an unwarranted action or failure to fulfill the above prerequisites should constitute malice. Damages, especially financial, should not be necessary to prove malice. We are all aware of the scenario in which a practitioner must undergo years of legal hassle (not to mention stress) to defend against a frivolous suit. He (or she) should have the same “access to the Courts,” even though he was able to maintain his practice and way of life in the face of unwarranted adversity. It has been open season on the health-care practitioner for too long The answer to these problems lies with the legislature. We must:
SOLVING THE LITIGATION PROBLEM To the EditortI am writing this letter because I have great concern with regard to the malpractice crisis that is attacking the health-care professions. The time has come to take the necessary steps to remedy this major social problem, which is increasing the cost of health care, decreasing the quality of life for the health-care practitioner, and eroding the morality of the legal profession and its tort system. My father practiced oral surgery for 50 years, and the ideals he believed in were based on trust between the ethical practitioner and the patient. He practiced openly, according to his knowledge and convictions, and without fear of his patients. I find it hard to follow in his footsteps and feel remorse for having to veer from these lofty ideals to conform to the changing modes of practice due to the malpractice threat. I find it especially difficult due to the attitudes now prevalent to offer my skills to patients without some form of protection for myself from the misled patient and misguided members of the legal profession. We are all aware that there are unethical, poorly trained or uncaring practitioners of the health professions and that the public must be protected from them. There are also avoidable accidents that must be answered for. But in its zeal to seek these out, the legal profession is also stalking the ethical, skillful, and dedicated practitioner as well. There is no “justice” for the health-care professional who is at the mercy of every unhappy patient-who have, in addition, no trouble finding an attorney who will litigate with few facts and almost no expert opinions in an attempt to scare some compensation from the practitioner or his or her insurance carrier. The faith and trust of patients in their doctors have been greatly eroded by this problem. The lofty, dedicated concepts by which health-care professionals practice are faltering, and many individuals are becoming disenchanted with the long hours and high stress in light of the constant threat of unwarranted malpractice suits. A defensive attitude has set in that is demoralizing to the practitioner and that undermines the doctor-patient relationship. The necessity to pass on the increasingly high cost of malpractice premiums has a further unbinding effect, not to mention increasing the cost of health care to the patient. The misguided attorney who files unwarranted suits without proper preparation or attention to the law is
1. Ensure access for review and legal action to the public; 2. Return the regulation of the professions to those who are competent to regulate them, i.e., the professional; 3. Institute a system of peer review and a panel of “experts” who are qualified or even certified for use by the legal profession; 4. Further define probable cause with regard to malpractice; 5. Redefine the requirements for malice with regard to malpractice prosecution; 6. Attempt a speedy resolution of disputes. Unless these things are done we will continue to see deterioration of the present, already poor, doctor-patient relationships, and no one will benefit. WILBUR McL.
DAVIS, JR. Orlando, Florida
924
Surg
1985
slowly degrading the legal profession in the eyes of the public, the health-care industry, and the ethical practitioners of law. It is indeed unfortunate that the reputation of the legal profession is so often degraded by a few who ignore or twist the law for a contingency fee. To restore the sense of dignity to both the health-care and legal professions, and to restore a sense of trust between both professions and the public, reform is mandatory. In malpractice cases, probable cause should be substantiated by a competent expert. A competent expert should be one who is recognized as such, is ethical, and is practicing in the same general geographic area as the plaintiff. The attorney should be charged with investigating and examining the facts as they present, with expert advice, prior to proceeding with an action. Proceeding with an unwarranted action or failure to fulfill the above prerequisites should constitute malice. Damages, especially financial, should not be necessary to prove malice. We are all aware of the scenario in which a practitioner must undergo years of legal hassle (not to mention stress) to defend against a frivolous suit. He (or she) should have the same “access to the Courts,” even though he was able to maintain his practice and way of life in the face of unwarranted adversity. It has been open season on the health-care practitioner for too long The answer to these problems lies with the legislature. We must:
SOLVING THE LITIGATION PROBLEM To the EditortI am writing this letter because I have great concern with regard to the malpractice crisis that is attacking the health-care professions. The time has come to take the necessary steps to remedy this major social problem, which is increasing the cost of health care, decreasing the quality of life for the health-care practitioner, and eroding the morality of the legal profession and its tort system. My father practiced oral surgery for 50 years, and the ideals he believed in were based on trust between the ethical practitioner and the patient. He practiced openly, according to his knowledge and convictions, and without fear of his patients. I find it hard to follow in his footsteps and feel remorse for having to veer from these lofty ideals to conform to the changing modes of practice due to the malpractice threat. I find it especially difficult due to the attitudes now prevalent to offer my skills to patients without some form of protection for myself from the misled patient and misguided members of the legal profession. We are all aware that there are unethical, poorly trained or uncaring practitioners of the health professions and that the public must be protected from them. There are also avoidable accidents that must be answered for. But in its zeal to seek these out, the legal profession is also stalking the ethical, skillful, and dedicated practitioner as well. There is no “justice” for the health-care professional who is at the mercy of every unhappy patient-who have, in addition, no trouble finding an attorney who will litigate with few facts and almost no expert opinions in an attempt to scare some compensation from the practitioner or his or her insurance carrier. The faith and trust of patients in their doctors have been greatly eroded by this problem. The lofty, dedicated concepts by which health-care professionals practice are faltering, and many individuals are becoming disenchanted with the long hours and high stress in light of the constant threat of unwarranted malpractice suits. A defensive attitude has set in that is demoralizing to the practitioner and that undermines the doctor-patient relationship. The necessity to pass on the increasingly high cost of malpractice premiums has a further unbinding effect, not to mention increasing the cost of health care to the patient. The misguided attorney who files unwarranted suits without proper preparation or attention to the law is
1. Ensure access for review and legal action to the public; 2. Return the regulation of the professions to those who are competent to regulate them, i.e., the professional; 3. Institute a system of peer review and a panel of “experts” who are qualified or even certified for use by the legal profession; 4. Further define probable cause with regard to malpractice; 5. Redefine the requirements for malice with regard to malpractice prosecution; 6. Attempt a speedy resolution of disputes. Unless these things are done we will continue to see deterioration of the present, already poor, doctor-patient relationships, and no one will benefit. WILBUR McL.
DAVIS, JR. Orlando, Florida
924