Support our online development, and advance our onground research initiatives in free market economics, as we seek to showcase the brightest Next-Gen minds.
THE ME-P DISCLAIMER: Posts, comments and opinions do not necessarily represent iMBA, Inc., but become our property after submission. Copyright © 2006 to-date. iMBA, Inc allows colleges, universities, medical and financial professionals and related clinics, hospitals and non-profit healthcare organizations to distribute our proprietary essays, photos, videos, audios and other documents; etc. However, please review copyright and usage information for each individual asset before submission to us, and/or placement on your publication or web site. Attestation references, citations and/or back-links are required. All other assets are property of the individual copyright holder.
Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Staff Reporters
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts [JCM] recently ruled that doctors can be held liable for negligence that reduces a patient’s chance of survival, even if the patient’s prospect for recovery was already less than 50 percent.
“Loss of Chance”
The SJC recognized for the first time a legal doctrine known in medical malpractice cases as “loss of chance,”
Definition
LOC allows a patient whose odds of recovery are 50 percent or less to receive damages for any negligence that reduced those odds. The court also established a formula for juries to award damages proportionate to the reduced survival rate caused by the doctor’s negligence, according to the Boston Globe July 24, 2008.
Assessment
Some medical malpractice lawyers opine that the decision could help patients who previously had little chance of collecting damages from physicians.
Conclusion
Your thoughts and opinion are appreciated; please comment?
Related Information Sources:
Practice Management: http://www.springerpub.com/prod.aspx?prod_id=23759
Physician Financial Planning: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/0763745790
Medical Risk Management: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763733421
Healthcare Organizations: www.HealthcareFinancials.com
Health Administration Terms: www.HealthDictionarySeries.com
Physician Advisors: www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.com
Subscribe Now: Did you like this Executive-Post, or find it helpful, interesting and informative? Want to get the latest E-Ps delivered to your email box each morning? Just subscribe using the link below. You can unsubscribe at any time. Security is assured.
Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos
Copyright 2008 iMBA Inc: All rights reserved, USA, unless otherwise noted. Use is restricted to Executive-Post subscribers only. No redistribution is allowed. To avoid violation of iMBA Inc copyright restrictions and redistribution policy, please register for your own free Executive-Post membership. Detailed information and registration links are available at:
Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos
Referrals: Thank you in advance for your electronic referrals to the Executive-Post.
Share this:
Filed under: Career Development, Health Law & Policy, Professional Liability, Risk Management |
The Leading Business Education Network for Doctors, Financial Advisors and Health Industry Consultants 
Loss of Chance,
I would have to agree with medical malpractice lawyers who suggest that the “Loss of Chance” doctrine, accepted by States, would invite frivolous lawsuits.
Currently, Florida has not adopted this rule. In the event it did, the following considerations should be reviewed.
How would this affect the doctor’s decision on handling marginal cases; attorney’s ability to file suits; and familiy emotions to Cash-in-On opportunity?
I don’t oppose the public right to hire an attorney and file suit when necessary. I also do not agree on capping settlements. Both the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] and the General Accounting Office [GAO] review of the Kessler-McClellan study showed that the evidence was not conclusive enough to support the claim that caps on damages could hold down overall medical cost.
However, I do have a claim against attorneys who file suits with the only possibility to cash in on a marginal situation. Even though the opinion of some is that the frivolous law suits do not make it through the system, I would have to point out that it still costs money. The doctors have to hire an attorney, answer legal complaints as well as spending hours preparing for the possibility of a trial.
A report issued by Towers Perrin, 2006 – Update on U.S. Tort Cost Trends – showed that since 1975 medical malpractice cost has increases at an annual rate of 11.4%.
* Furthermore, would doctors request second and third opinions when treating a marginal case?
* Could insurance companies increase premiums to handle addition protocols to protect against this doctrine?
* Who would pay, the doctors, patients or insurance carriers for these items?
In addition, percentages do not tell the whole truth on the survival of the patient. What expert can really testify that a certain procedure or early detection would guarantee 100% survival? I believe in accountability for doctors’ actions. They should be held responsible for real negligence as proven by the current law.
The focus should not be on whom to blame and who should pay; instead, we should focus on what would improve our system. Medicine is not an exact science.
-A Certifed Financial Planner
LikeLike