Blogs

What's the cause of the health care crisis? lawyers representing injured patients cause the

Lawyers who represent people who have been injured by the carelessness of their health care providers hear all the time that it is our lawsuits that have caused doctors to leave their medical practices.  Because we sue doctors and other health care providers, we are accused of being the reason that citizens in some states do not have enough doctors to take care of their families. 

Frankly, that's a lie.

Research by the doctors' own group, the American Medical Association, shows just the opposite -- the number of doctors has increased in every state and has doubled the number of doctors per capita since the 1960s.  These results were reported in the AMA's Physician Characteristics and Distribution report (that for some reason has been discontinued).

For years, insurance companies for health care providers and medical societies have worked to pass laws all over the country that limit patients' access to justice by putting caps (limits) on the amount a severely injured patient can recover for their injuries.  Medical societies and insurance companies have claimed for years that without such limits on patients' rights, doctors would leave the practice.  "Frivolous lawsuits" were touted as a major reason for the need for caps on the rights of severely injured patients to recover for the injuries caused by their health care providers.  Now we know from the AMA's own information that has not happened.  For more information setting the record straight, see this article.

The AMA and the Virginia Medical Society will not tell you the real cause of medical malpractice lawsuits:  negligent health care providers.

Medical malpractice case dismissed - filed too late

Virginia has a two-year statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases.  That is, a patient has to file her case within two years of when she was injured or there's no case. The only exception is when a health care provider continues to treat the patient after the malpractice occurs.  That is, continuous treatment of the patient by the health care provider creates an extension of the statute of limitations.

A judge in Richmond recently ruled against the patient and dismissed her case.  The judge said that the statute of limitations had expired even though the patient had been seen by the defendant radiologist several times after the alleged malpractice occurred.  The judge looked at several other cases and concluded that each time the radiologist performed and interpreted the various radiological studies on the patient's brain was a separate and distinct event, not a continuous treatment that would extend the statute of limitations. 

Seattle Teen Dies from Fentanyl Overdose - Hospital Admits Mistake

I posted a blog at my Virginia Child Injury Lawyer blog about the death of Michael Blankenship, a 15 year old teen in Seattle who died from a narcotic overdose from a Fentanyl patch that was prescribed to him after dental surgery at Seattle Children's Hospital in March.  Fentanyl is a powerful narcotic most often used to ease severe pain such as that experienced by many patients with end-stage cancer.  The hospital has admitted its error. 

My friend Christopher Davis, a great trial lawyer in Seattle, has sued the hospital and the dentist for Michael's death.  Regardless of the hospital's having admitted errors in its procedures, Michael's family seeks to hold it and the dentist responsible for the losses the family has suffered because of Michael's death. 

Health care providers should not kill their patients by prescribing narcotics at lethal levels.  If you suspect a child has been injured or killed by the careless of a Virginia health care provider, you should speak to an experienced medical malpractice lawyer.  Feel free to give me a call at 703-273-9500, contact me by email at srohrstaff@WRSattorneys.com or through this website, www.WRSattorneys.com.  I never advise families to file frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits.  They are very difficult and expensive and take a great emotional toll on the family.  I will answer your questions for free.

Certificate of Merit Unconstiutional in Washington State

I just posted a copy of an opinion of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.  Why?  Because that Court held that its law requiring a plaintiff to have a "certificate of merit" before filing a lawsuit is unconstitutional.  Virginia has the same requirement.

Some might say that it's fair to require an injured person to be sure the claim against the doctor or hospital has merit before forcing the doctor or hospital to defend a lawsuit.  However, think about it.  What is a certificate of merit based on?  The information in the medical records.  Who gets to put the information in the medical records?   The doctor or hospital personnel.

I'm not saying that all doctors and hospital personnel are evil or go about their business purposely to deceive.  But, if something goes wrong or they see they've made a mistake, it's easy enough to leave something out or put something in the records that will leave a legitimately injured person out in the cold with no remedy against the wrongdoer.

I don't believe in frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits.  Good lawyers who represent people who have been injured by a health care provider know better than to take cases without merit.  They cost a LOT of money and take a lot of time and are of no benefit to the injured person.  Why would a lawyer gamble on a case that he or she didn't believe had merit?

Charitable Immunity isn't charitable

Virginia is one of the few states that still lets wrongdoers off the hook under the ancient doctrine of "Charitable Immunity."  Charitable immunity may have been a good idea when it was first created, but it isn't anymore.  Immunity is given to charities to protect their assets from having to be used to defend lawsuits when others are injured while the charity is doing its charitable acts.  The reasoning behind the policy is that charitable acts ought to be encouraged and giving charities immunity will further than goal.

I have nothing against the goal.  I do charitable work and contribute to charities.  They add great value to our society.  However, the time for protecting them with immunity is long past.  Why?  Because large corporations have found ways to cloak themselves as charities while doing multi-millions of dollars in business.  And, besides, these so-called charitible institutions carry insurance to protect their assets. 

The Virginia Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging Virginia charitable immunity law.  Read more about this case here.

Weiner, Rohrstaff & Spivey has worked for many years on cases where this defense was raised by large institutions that injured our clients.  We hope the Jiminez v. Didlake case is the one that topples that outdated doctrine that prevents a remedy to those injured by such organizations.