Virginia Malpractice News » patient’s rights

Delays, Delays, Delays…

Ben Glass — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:51:12 +0000

Insurance companies make a ton of money by delaying everything. They delay paying the bill you submit, hiding behind the “we need more information” umbrella. They delay responding to legitimate requests to settle meritorious malpractice cases.

In one case it took a surgeon’s insurance company months to respond to a demand when the doctor had clearly operated on the wrong body part. Amazingly, after months of “evaluating” the case, they said “no payment.” (That doctor is now facing a medical board inquiry.)

In another case the hospital and surgeons left a sponge a patient after surgery. We wrote a fair demand package and provided all of the records. We gave them 30 days to respond.

Didn’t even get the courtesy of a response, for over three months.

Their response? “We need more time–please don’t sue us.”

All of these delays allow the insurance companies to bank millions in investment income while injured party, the one who ends up suing, winds up being called a “liar, cheat and fraud” because he had the temerity to file suit.

Should Hospitals Be Required to Produce Incident Reports?

Ben Glass — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:37:29 +0000

What happens when a record made by a hospital is claimed to be privileged? Is it important to justice that all facts about an incident see the light of day in order that justice be completed?

Here is a very interesting transcript that is wealth worth the read and will give you an “insider’s look” at a real medical malpractice case.

All credit to Newport News attorney Avery Waterman for continuing the fight to bring to light all relevant facts in a medical malpractice case in order that juries, judges and the public can see and arrive at their own decision.

Here is the medical malpractice transcript regarding incident reports and whether they should remain secret or not.

Washington State Supreme Court Ruled Latest Tort Reform Laws Unconstitutional

Mindy Weinstein — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:00:30 +0000

Not long ago, the Washington State Supreme Court made a ruling that basically found one of its latest tort reform laws to be unconstitutional.

This law made plaintiffs submit a “Certificate of Merit” with any lawsuit that alleged medical malpractice. The “Certificate of Merit” document had to be signed by a medical professional who possessed expertise in the defendant’s field. When a doctor signs the Certificate, he or she is in essence saying that the feeling is that the standard of care was violated in some way. In a medical malpractice case, it has to be shown that the standard of care was violated and that this violation was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury.

According to the court’s opinion, mandating that plaintiffs have to produce evidence before discovery, which is the time period that both sides trade documents and information, put an undue burden on the plaintiffs. Also, the court decided that this requirement passed by the legislation interfered too much with the judicial branch and access to the courts, making it unconstitutional.

There is a lot of talk by politicians regarding tort reform. It is crucial to understand that when they are talking about tort reform, they are basically talking about removing patients’ rights.