Doc:
Heres a shocker. I disagree with you. How do you come up with the statment that theres a lack of accountability in the law profession. Since you apply reason over emotion, what facts do you have in support. Not opinion, facts.
How do you determine that lawyers decieve and not enlighten? If I'm trying to hide something I have every faith that my opponent will bring that fact to light before the trier of fact and further will damage my credibility with a jury.
Once again I disagree with you as to why less doctors are specializing in general surgery. You blame lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits. I point to insurance companies who have drastically reduced the amounts they are willing to pay surgeons as well as other specialists.
I know numerous orthopaedic surgeons whose incomes were well into 7 figures in the golden age of medicine in the 80's who are now stuggling to get by making 400k per year. Alot to most of us, but there income was cut 60 -70 per cent by your friendly health insurance carrier.
yet lawyers once again are the convenient scapegoat. Insurance rates are high not because of malpractice cases but rather because insurance companies set the rates and have a very effective marketing strategy to blame attorneys and greedy plaintiffs. The reality and facts are that increase in malpractice premiums has no correlation to an increase in plaintiffs verdicts. I suggest doc that you ask your carrier some hard questions.
Although you may be altruistic, it has been my experience that the majority of physicians are into your profession for the money. I hear this from medical school students, medical doctors and salesmen providing medical equipment.
It has been my experience that juries do not pay inordinate amounts of money for minor injuries. On the rare occasions that they do, the media jumps all over it. Does the media jump on a case where a doctor gets a defense verdict in a malpractice case yet he in fact commited malpractice. You and I both know the answer to that question.
For those of you that don't know, in order to get a medical malpractice case before a jury, the plaintiff must provide EXPERT MEDICAL TESTIMONY indicating that the defendant doctors treatment fell below the standard of care in that community. In other words a fellow doctor must testify that the defendant doctor committed malpractice.
It's not quite as simple as you would have everyone believe doc. As you know doc the odds of successfully prosecuting a plaintiffs medical malpractice case are both extremely high and extremely costly for the plaintiffs attorney. IN EVERY MALPRACTICE CASE THAT I HAVE BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT I HAVE SPENT A MINIMUN OF $15,000.00 TO PROSECUTE THE CASE.
Yet, you would have everyone believe that if you just file a suit, no matter how lacking in fact, you recover big bucks. You are dead wrong. YOu are trying to spread the same lies that the insurance companies spread. FACT: 90% of the verdicts in medical malpractice cases are for the defendant. They are the most difficult cases to prove since MOST DOCTORS WILL NOT TESTIFY AGAINST THERE FELLOW DOCTORS.
Stop the lies doc. These are facts and not biased opinions. I agree that the civil justice system needs work. So does your profession big guy.
Eddie