In Georgia, Middle Ground for Victims of Medical Wrongdoing?

How many hoops should you have to jump through to get justice? It's a fair question that many people struggle with. Yesterday, the CEO of a Georgia medical services company suggested - in an opinion piece submitted to a GA newspaper - that to be sure that Georgians who have been harmed by negligent medical care are worthy of justice we should subject them to one more hoop. Not coincidentally, it's a hoop that benefits only medical professionals and insurance companies – the only two interest groups that profit when injured patients are prevented from securing justice.

What the author of the opinion has proposed is that, instead of allowing victims of medical malpractice the same Constitutional Right to Trial by Jury enjoyed by all other Georgians, people harmed by medical wrongdoing/malpractice would have to get permission to have a jury trial from a “screening panel” comprised of members of the medical and insurance industries, the same industries that want to avoid compensating injured patients. This approach is wrong and adds an unnecessary, ineffective layer to our civil justice system.

The fact is all medical malpractice cases brought in Georgia have already been through multiple screening hoops. The first hoop is that you have to have had something very bad happen as a result of malpractice. Your next hoop is that you have to find a lawyer willing and able to take your case. That lawyer will tell you that there is another, special hoop that protects only professionals charged with negligence. In order to pass through that hoop, the patient must find a medical professional willing to publicly criticize their colleague and sign a document swearing that malpractice happened. So far your case has been screened three times: Something bad happens. You find a lawyer who will invest in helping you find justice. And, you find another doctor who agrees that there was malpractice and is willing to say so. Then there’s a fourth screening before you can have a jury hear your case: the judge must screen the case, too.

Our Founding Fathers created the world's best independent screening panels when they imbedded the right to a trial by jury in our Constitution. You are entitled to a jury of your peers, not a two step process, the first of which is a trial by jury of the defendant's colleagues. We trust the people of our communities to fairly resolve our disputes when we are unable to resolve them ourselves.

The CEO cites an approach tried in Maine as being the right fit for us here in Georgia. He fails to mention that this approach is regularly criticized by the Supreme Court of Maine as being inadequate and harmful to the people of Maine. He cites, as a reason for needing “screening panels,” a Georgia case involving a plastic surgeon who carelessly destroyed the blood supply to a woman’s face and left her horribly disfigured. He suggests that this woman – who was horribly injured through no fault of her own and who successfully navigated all of the legal hurdles to hold the wrongdoer accountable for herself and other patients – has not done enough. He says she needs to clear yet another hurdle to prove herself worthy of a jury trial. The suggestion is outrageous and it serves no purpose but to deny those who have been harmed their fair measure of justice.

Why should patients who have been harmed by medical malpractice have to go through two trials when everyone else only has to go through one? Why should medical professionals get special treatment? It's a question with an obvious answer: They shouldn't.

Insurance Company Profits 24% Higher in States with Severe Restrictions on Patients' Rights

For Immediate Release: December 10, 2009

Contact: Ray De Lorenzi
American Association for Justice
202-965-3500 x8369
AAJ Press Room

Report: State Tort Reforms Don't Lower Premiums
For Doctors or Patients

Insurance company profits 24% higher in states with severe restrictions on patients' rights

Washington, DC—State tort reforms have provided a boon to insurance companies, leading to record profits while physician and patient premiums continue to skyrocket.

An analysis of data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and company annual statements shows malpractice insurer profits are 24 percent higher in states with caps. In these cap states, insurers took in 3.5 times more in premiums than they paid out in 2008. In contrast, insurers in states without caps took in just over twice what they paid in claims.

The findings also show absolutely no correlation between the cost of malpractice premiums and health insurance premiums. For example, Maine has the ninth lowest malpractice premiums but the fourth highest health insurance premiums. Conversely, Nevada has the third lowest health insurance premiums nationally, but malpractice premiums are the country's ninth highest, despite having a cap in place for eight years.

"The data are clear: tort reform is just another insurance company handout," said American Association for Justice President Anthony Tarricone. "Insurers cried wolf and demanded tort reform, only to pocket the profits and never pass savings onto physicians or patients. While 98,000 people die every year from preventable medical errors, it's nonsensical to limit patients' rights simply to fill insurance company coffers."

The report also shows how medical negligence laws were passed under false pretenses. The medical malpractice insurance industry has seen a 47 percent increase in profitability in the last 10 years. Overblown "reported" losses were used by the insurance industry to justify new measures restricting the rights of those injured by medical negligence.

Now that over 30 states have malpractice caps, insurance companies are enjoying extremely high levels of profit. In 2008, the average profit of the 10 largest medical malpractice insurers was higher than 99 percent of Fortune 500 companies and 35 times higher than the Fortune 500 average.

Finally, the report explains the dynamics of the insurance cycle and trends in premium pricing, which are well-known by analysts within the insurance industry. Remarkably, the industry’s leaders are already positioning to claim another “tort crisis” and to lobby for even more severe restrictions on patients’ rights in 2012.

To view a copy of Insurance Company Handout: How the Industry Used Tort Reform to Increase Profits While Americans' Premiums Soared, visit http://www.justice.org/clips/Insurance_Company_Handout.pdf.

AAJ has released a series of reports throughout the health care debate, as well as video tributes to the lives behind medical negligence. To learn more, visit www.98000reasons.org.

###
As the world's largest trial bar, the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) works to make sure people have a fair chance to receive justice through the legal system when they are injured by the negligence or misconduct of others--even when it means taking on the most powerful corporations. Visit http://www.justice.org.

Congressman Bruce Braley Stands up for Patients in America

New Paper Debunks Malpractice Myths

Contact: Ray De Lorenzi
202-965-3500 x369
AAJ Press Room

New Paper Debunks Malpractice Myths

Washington, DC—As enemies of health care reform spread lies and untruths about medical negligence, a new white paper tackles the issue head-on, debunking the most common myths with sound science and research while refuting the hyperbole and empty rhetoric.

Five Myths About Medical Negligence, one in a series of reports from the American Association for Justice on this issue, examines the errors and faults behind the most commonly used talking points of health care reform opponents.

• Myth #1: There are too many “frivolous” malpractice lawsuits.

Fact: There’s an epidemic of medical negligence, not lawsuits. Only one in eight people injured by medical negligence ever file suit. Civil filings have declined eight percent over the last decade, and are less than one percent of the whole civil docket. A 2006 Harvard study found that 97 percent of claims were meritorious, stating, “portraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown.”

• Myth #2: Malpractice claims drive up health care costs.

Fact: According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the total spent defending claims and compensating victims of medical negligence was just 0.3% of health care costs, and the Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office have made similar findings.

• Myth #3: Doctors are fleeing.

Fact: Then where are they going? According to the American Medical Association’s own data, the number of practicing physicians in the United States has been growing steadily for decades. Not only are there more doctors, but the number of doctors is increasing faster than population growth. Despite the cries of physicians fleeing multiple states, the number of physicians increased in every state, and only four states saw growth slower than population growth; these four states all have medical malpractice caps.

• Myth #4: Malpractice claims drive up doctors’ premiums.

Fact: Empirical research has found that there is little correlation between malpractice payouts and malpractice premiums paid by doctors. A study of the leading medical malpractice insurance companies’ financial statements by former Missouri Insurance Commissioner Jay Angoff found that these insurers artificially raised doctors’ premiums and misled the public about the nature of medical negligence claims. A previous AAJ report on malpractice insurers found they had earnings higher than 99% of Fortune 500 companies.

• Myth #5: Tort reform will lower insurance rates.

Fact: Tort reforms are passed under the guise that they will lower physicians’ liability premiums. This does not happen. While insurers do pay out less money when damages awards are capped, they do not pass the savings along to doctors by lowering premiums. Even the most ardent tort reformers have been caught stating that tort reform will have no effect on insurance rates.

“All the facts and evidence show that tort law changes will do practically nothing to lower costs or cover the uninsured,” said AAJ President Anthony Tarricone. “It’s no wonder the tort reformers, insurance lobby, and other corporate front groups have to gin up lies and phony stats, since no legitimate data or research supports their claims. Our focus should be on reducing the 98,000 deaths by medical error that occurs every year, not limiting patients’ legal rights.”

As part of its ongoing series on the topic, AAJ earlier released Medical Negligence: A Primer for the Nation’s Health Care Debate, The Truth About “Defensive Medicine,” and The Insurance Hoax: How Doctors and Patients Pay for the Huge Earnings of Medical Malpractice Insurers. These can be located at www.justice.org/medicalnegligence. Five Myths About Medical Negligence can be found directly at: www.justice.org/clips/Five Myths About Medical Negligence.pdf.

###
As the world's largest trial bar, the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) works to make sure people have a fair chance to receive justice through the legal system when they are injured by the negligence or misconduct of others--even when it means taking on the most powerful corporations. Visit http://www.justice.org.

Tort Law Changes Won't Reduce Malpractice Premiums

For Immediate Release: October 29, 2009

Contact: Ray De Lorenzi, American Association for Justice
202-965-3500 x369
AAJ Press Room

New Data Shows Tort Law Changes Won’t Reduce Malpractice Premiums

Insurance companies lobby to limit patients’ legal rights,
yet never pass savings onto physicians or consumers

Washington, DC—Tort law changes have failed to reduce malpractice insurance costs, and states with caps on damages often have higher premiums than states without caps, according to an analysis of just-released liability data.

While insurance companies have claimed tort law changes would lower physicians’ premiums, this has not been the case. There is either no difference in rates between cap and non-cap states, or cap states actually have higher premiums – underscoring how a state’s liability laws play no role in lowering insurance or overall health care costs. Doctors’ premiums rise and fall based on the insurance cycle, totally unrelated to the legal system.

The new data shows:
• Average liability premiums across internists, general surgeons and OB/Gyns are nearly identical for states with or without caps.
• Average liability premiums for OB/Gyns are nearly identical for states with or without caps.
• Average liability premiums for general surgeons are 9.3% higher in states with caps.
• Average liability premiums for internal medicine are 9.9% higher in states with caps.

“Malpractice insurers promised tort law changes would lower premiums, yet it has not happened,” said American Association for Justice President Anthony Tarricone. “While these companies make record profits off the backs of doctors, patients injured through no fault of their own are often unable to seek recourse. This information comes at an important time in the health care debate – providing clear evidence that tort law changes won’t decrease costs.”

The above statistics were derived from data released this month in Medical Liability Monitor. More information and charts on this data can be found at www.justice.org/clips/premiums2009.pdf.

As part of its ongoing series on the topic, AAJ earlier released Medical Negligence: A Primer for the Nation’s Health Care Debate, The Truth About “Defensive Medicine,” and The Insurance Hoax: How Doctors and Patients Pay for the Huge Earnings of Medical Malpractice Insurers, all of which can be located at www.justice.org/medicalnegligence.

###
As the world's largest trial bar, the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) works to make sure people have a fair chance to receive justice through the legal system when they are injured by the negligence or misconduct of others--even when it means taking on the most powerful corporations. Visit http://www.justice.org.

Mom amputee after medical malpractice

From CNN:

Six years ago, shortly after arriving at the ER at Memorial Hospital West in the Fort Lauderdale suburb of Pembroke Pines, Strong says she told a nurse she thought she was having a problem with a kidney stone. She had had difficulties with stones.

But miscommunication between doctors and different diagnoses eventually led to her being discharged without having the kidney stone treated. That led to a rare tissue inflammation called "the line of demarcation," seen as a darkening of the skin in the extremities that slowly creeps upward.

"My fingers were turning black and curling. They looked charred," she said. "My toes were turning blue and black. It wouldn't stop. I had no idea what was happening to me," she recalled.

Strong said she was told she had no choice but to have her arms and legs amputated to save her life.

Medical malpractice insurers earning more than ever

For Immediate Release: October 6, 2009

Contact: Ray De Lorenzi, American Association for Justice
202-965-3500 x369
AAJ Press Room

Medical Malpractice Insurers Earning More Than Ever

10 biggest malpractice insurers have average profits
higher than 99% of Fortune 500 companies

Washington, DC—As Congress debates nationwide health care reform, a new analysis reveals malpractice insurers have long-played a cruel hoax on legislators and the public. By systematically distorting profits and losses, insurers created phony “financial crises,” so lawmakers would limit the legal rights of injured patients. Today, while premiums and health care costs skyrocket, malpractice insurers have average profits higher than 99 percent of Fortune 500 companies.

The key findings of the report, which analyzes the annual financial statements of the 10 largest U.S. medical malpractice insurers, include:

• The average profit of these insurance companies is higher than 99 percent of all Fortune 500 companies and 35 times higher than the Fortune 500 average for the same time period.
• Malpractice insurers have seen their profit margins range from 5.9 percent to 74.8 percent, with an average of 31.2 percent.

Medical malpractice insurers have underestimated profits and overestimated losses, creating overblown insurance “crises” to garner support for limiting patients’ legal rights. Then years later after the “crises” abated, revised filings show the companies were never in the financial peril they claimed.

• After overestimating losses, insurers have since reported that losses over the last five years have been approximately 13.5 percent lower than initially reported.
• By overestimating losses, companies have underestimated profits. Insurers averaged about 5.1 percent higher profits last year and 12.4 percent higher profits two years ago; these levels of profits will likely rise as upward revisions are made.
• Medical negligence laws were passed under false pretenses. Overblown reported losses were used by the insurance industry to justify new measures restricting the rights of those injured by medical negligence.

“Insurance companies are gouging doctors on their premiums to mislead lawmakers. And today, injured patients are often left with no avenue to pursue justice, while health care costs continue to skyrocketing,” said American Association for Justice President Anthony Tarricone, managing partner at Kreindler & Kreindler LLP.

“As Congress looks to overhaul our nation’s health care system, it’s clear that limiting the legal rights of patients won’t lower health care costs or cover the uninsured,” continued Tarricone. “The focus should be on eliminating medical errors that injure or kill tens of thousands of Americans every year. Insurance companies clearly don’t need another handout.”

As part of its ongoing series on the topic, AAJ earlier released Medical Negligence: A Primer for the Nation’s Health Care Debate and The Truth About “Defensive Medicine.” These reports, as well as The Insurance Hoax: How Doctors and Patients Pay for the Huge Earnings of Medical Malpractice Insurers, can be located at www.justice.org/medicalnegligence.

###
As the world's largest trial bar, the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) works to make sure people have a fair chance to receive justice through the legal system when they are injured by the negligence or misconduct of others--even when it means taking on the most powerful corporations. Visit http://www.justice.org.

Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments on Caps on Damages

Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments on Caps on Damages
Statute is challenged after a medical malpractice victim’s face
literally falls off after surgery

Atlanta, GA-- On Tuesday, September 15, 2009, the Georgia Supreme Court will hear oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of the provision that caps the amount of damages a victim of medical malpractice can secure from a jury. The plaintiffs in the case of Betty Nestlehutt and Bruce Nestlehutt v. Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C., will argue that the Georgia Supreme Court should uphold the trial court judge’s finding that O.C.G.A. § 51-13-1, as enacted in 2005, is unconstitutional.

The case arose from a medical malpractice claim filed by Adam Malone and Frank Ilardi on behalf of their clients Betty Nestlehutt and her husband Bruce Nestlehutt in the Fulton County State Court in October of 2008. Married for over 50 years, the Nestlehutts raised two children and they shared a real estate business. Bruce handled the behind-the-scenes work, and Betty, a people-person by nature, focused on client and public interaction. Competition was tough and as Betty aged she found that more and more clients seemed to prefer younger agents. So, at seventy-one years of age, Betty Nestlehutt, after much thought and consideration, sought consultation with Dr. Harvey P. Cole of Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. concerning bags under her eyes and lines around her mouth. Dr. Cole recommended she undergo several surgical procedures including a simultaneous CO2 laser resurfacing and full facelift.

Having both the CO2 laser resurfacing and full facelift done together is well-known by practicing cosmetic surgeons to be risky, as the chance of damaging the facial blood supply is greatly increased on a patient of Betty’s age and complexion. However, based on her doctor’s recommendation, Betty went through the combination of procedures and the blood supply to her face was, in fact, severely damaged.

After the surgery, the skin on Betty’s face struggled to live without its usual blood supply and after a 3-week period, died completely, leaving the once fair-skinned wife and mother with huge, gaping wounds from her temple to her jaw line, covering both sides of her face and over both of her cheeks to her chin. Betty Nestlehutt’s face, quite literally, fell off.

“Betty Nestlehutt was the face of her real estate business,” said Malone. “Her face was so horrifically disfigured that she was no longer able to even leave her house. Photographs of her disfigurement are even too gruesome for public distribution. The damage is permanent. Years later she has to wear layers of special makeup to try to give the appearance of normalcy.”

After hearing the testimony and considering all of the evidence, a jury of 12 returned with a verdict in the Nestlehutts’ favor which included a recovery of money damages for her past and future medical expenses, for damage to her relationship with her husband and $900,000 in “non-economic” damages for the devastation of her quality of life. The verdict exceeded the $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages enacted as part of SB 3 in 2005. Judge Diane Bessen declared unconstitutional the statute capping a jury’s verdict and now her decision, upon the defendant’s appeal, is before the Supreme Court.

“Judge Bessen’s order appropriately concluded that a one-size fits all predetermined cap on damages violates several protections guaranteed by the Georgia Constitution,” said Malone. “Her order balances the rights of all Georgians, young and old, rich and poor, and restores the guarantees set forth by our Constitution that were stripped away in 2005.”

Judge Bessen’s order declares the caps on damages provision unconstitutional because it violates three basic constitutional tenets: the right to trial by jury, the separation of powers doctrine and equal protection of the laws.

Under SB 3, the jury’s deliberation regarding the amount of damages to be awarded is preempted by a legislatively imposed cap—no matter how severe or catastrophic the case before them. Historically, a jury had the ability to decide the fate of its peers constrained only by the particular facts of an individual’s case, as the Founding Fathers intended. Thomas Jefferson once said, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution.”

In her order, Judge Bessen wrote:

A limit or cap on noneconomic damages, however, invades the right to a jury trial by usurping one of the fact-finding responsibilities of the jury. If the amount of noneconomic damages awarded by the jury exceeds the statutory cap, this Code section automatically and arbitrarily reduces the verdict, without consideration of the evidence, the record, or any other fact produced at trial and found by the jury. The limitations imposed by O.C.G.A. 51-13-1 render the right of the jury to assess damages meaningless… The cap so interferes with the determination of the jury that it renders the right of a jury trial wholly unavailable.

Additionally, Judge Bessen also found that the cap on damages violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine contained in the Georgia Constitution. Three other states’ supreme courts, with similar constitutional provisions, also have struck down caps on damages on this basis. The Georgia Constitution states that: “The legislative, judicial and executive powers shall forever remain separate and distinct, and no person discharging the duties of one, shall, at the same time, exercise the functions of either of the others.” One distinct function of the judicial branch is that judges have the exclusive right to award to a party a “remittitur” – or a new trial – if a judge finds that a verdict is either excessive or inadequate. Judge Bessen’s order declares the cap on damages statute to be a “legislative remittitur” and that the legislature has unconstitutionally invaded the exclusive role of the judiciary to find facts and control judgments.

“Equally important,” the judge writes, “it does so without the option of a new trial for the injured plaintiff. As such, it unduly encroaches upon the judiciary’s constitutional right and prerogative to determine whether a jury’s assessment of damages is either too excessive or too inadequate within the meaning of the law.”

The third violation of the Constitution Judge Bessen found was that a cap on damages violates the Equal Protection provisions of the Georgia Constitution which state: “No persons shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.” To examine this violation, Judge Bessen explored whether there was a “rational relationship” between the government’s purpose and its enacted statute which treats similar parties in very different, unequal ways.

The rational relationship test basically states that a statute may be valid as long as it has a rational relationship to a governmental purpose. In the case of SB 3, the government’s stated purpose was to “promote predictability and improvement in the provision of quality health care services and the resolution of healthcare claims..., assist in promoting the provision of healthcare liability insurance by insurance providers…, [and addressed concerns about] medical providers and facilities leaving the state and the cost of malpractice awards.” For a law to be valid, a rational relationship to those goals must be proven. Judge Bessen found that the cap on damages failed the rational relationship test completely.

In holding the cap on damages provision unconstitutional, Judge Bessen wrote:

After review, this Court finds that there is no rational relationship between statute and the expressed government interest. Most obviously, it is a complete contradiction to state that the overall quality of healthcare would be improved by shielding negligent healthcare providers from liability. In fact, as recognized by other courts, a cap on noneconomic damages actually diminishes tort liability for healthcare providers and diminishes the deterrent effect of tort law… There is absolutely no evidence that these objectives are achieved by imposing a financial burden on the most victimized of plaintiffs… Based on current statistics, limiting noneconomic damage caps is not rationally related to the state purpose of reducing medical malpractice insurance rates… it appears that this statute was enacted arbitrarily, based upon speculation and conjecture rather than empirical data.

Finally, Judge Bessen found that the cap on damages violates Equal Protection because it creates different classes of victims—those injured by healthcare providers and those injured by others and those who are catastrophically injured and those who are less severely injured. Judge Bessen penned, “The cap’s greatest impact falls on those who are most severely injured, and creates classes of fully compensated victims and those only partially compensated… Similarly, the noneconomic damages cap discriminates against low-income individuals who are unable to prove large economic damages but nonetheless may sustain large noneconomic damages.”

The President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, Chris Clark, has been following this case closely.

“As a trial lawyer, I represent the person, who, through no fault of their own, has been injured—sometimes severely. They miss work, accrue medical bills and—often most important to them—they suffer a loss of the quality of life that they once had,” said Clark. “Betty Nestlehutt’s severe disfigurement – which she had no part in creating – has diminished her quality of life and, in turn her husband’s and her family’s. Judge Bessen’s order was fair, upheld our Constitution, and reflected the rule of law that has stood firm since the inception of this nation.”

The argument on Tuesday was prepared by Malone and attorneys Darren Summerville of Bird Law Group, P.C. and Michael Terry of Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP. AARP, Voices for Georgia’s Children, Georgia Women for a Change and Georgia Watch all filed Amicus Briefs in support of Betty and Bruce Nestlehutt.

###

Dead by Mistake-- Medical Error kills Trevor Nelson

www.deadbymistake.com

Hearst Newspapers go in-depth researching the number 1 cause of accidental death in America-- medical errors and mistakes.

How are there 98,000 preventable deaths a year in this nation?

Click HERE to read the full account of Trevor Nelson's death.

Healthy woman dies during childbirth after bleeding for 16 hours-- a preventable death

Read all about Hearst Newspapers national expose on the number one cause of accidental death in the United States-- medical errors and mistakes at www.deadbymistake.com

The entire story of this young mother's death is available HERE.

Dead By Mistake-- case video

Meet Sharon Moore-- 1 of 5 patients of Dr. Earl's who were killed by an overdose prescribed by the doctor. Her entire story is HERE.

Check out www.deadbymistake.com

Compiled by Hearst Newspapers, www.deadbymistake.com is a site housing all the stories run about the 98,000 people who are killed every year from medical errors.

Dead By Mistake

Incredible multi-story investigative reporting about the 98,000 people killed each year by medical errors and mistakes. A must read!

All of the articles are available on one website: www.deadbymistake.com