Justinian Lane

A Family Doctor Tells It Like It Is About Malpractice Lawsuits & Defensive Medicine

Now this is a doctor I'd like to go to.  He has courage and conviction, and he won't commit insurance fraud to prevent a lawsuit.

Response to Just (Don't) Do It from the ER/Hospitalist camp (paraphrased):

I can't [fail to provide futile care]! I might get sued!

Yes. You might. So what? Heresy alert: being sued is not the end of the world.

In the first place, you almost certainly won't be. Despite its bad rap, the legal system really does work more often than it doesn't (excluding the John Edwardsian bad baby cases and such.) Besides, there's far more to a "lawsuit" than just "being sued." The chances of a case being filed, having it go all the way to trial, actually losing at trial AND having the verdict upheld on appeal are vanishingly small. As I mentioned previously, you seem to have no problem ignoring identical threats from patients requesting narcotics when you feel they're inappropriate. Why? Because you know damn well that their chances of finding a lawyer stupid enough (even given the median lawyer IQ) to take such a case is somewhere between slim and none. Guess what: failure to provide extraordinary, futile care to a patient who is clearly in the terminal phase of life (again, I'm not talking about borderline cases) is also NOT breaching the standard of care anywhere in this country. That irate family is going to have just as hard a time as the druggie finding a lawyer to file it. Grow some gonads and stand up to those families who use empty threats of lawsuits to demand inappropriate care.


Just for the record, I have indeed been sued, and no, it wasn't the great psychic rape/trauma everyone reads (and shudders) about all the time, because I knew I hadn't done anything wrong. Granted, one needs to take some common-sense precautions: make sure your policy specifies that the insurance company can't settle without your consent, and then refuse to settle frivolous and nuisance claims. Treat your patients well; keep good records (and NEVER alter them); cooperate with your defense team; (don't blog about your trial while it's going on); all the usual advice.

As it was, hearing that jury foreman say "Not Liable" was an empowering, vindicating experience. Sure, I had better things I could have done that week, but running and hiding and doing things that weren't medically appropriate just to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit would have left me much worse off emotionally in the long run.

Source: Musings of a Dinosaur: Managing Risk

Can I also reiterate his recommendation to NEVER alter medical records?  Maybe even make that *NEVER* alter them under ANY circumstance EVER.  If a jury finds out that you altered medical records, you're toast. 

Another hat tip to Walter at OL.

Justinian Lane: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 12:13 PM, Jul 21, 2008 in Medical Malpractice
Permalink | Email to Friend


I think if a lawyer alters his claim, he should be toast. How come the lawyer gets a 21 day take backsies.

There exists an affirmative moral imperative to defend clinical care, because the attack of the land pirate hurts patients.

Defendants should demand total e-discovery of all adverse parties, including the adverse lawyer. If the judge's rulings favor the plaintiff and having a trial, demand e-discovery on the biased judge or a recusal. If the doctor must live with uncertainty, no lawyer should avoid living with uncertainty the full 7 years of a case. Every utterance of the plaintiff lawyer should be parsed and reported for any violation of a Rule of Conduct, one at a time, monthly, so that the lawyer lives with investigation permanently. There should be repeated motions for sanctions and for dismissal based on the smallest mistake made by the land pirate. If a federal thug comes to attack clinical care, he gets the same. We know that the government cannot defend even the most ridiculous, and immediately dismissed claim for less than 6 figures. Generate costs that exceed the value of the government thug, so that the thug will lose his government thug job after a face saving interval.

To deter. To protect the productive enterprise from the all out siege of the lawyer.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | July 21, 2008 2:52 PM