Doctor Accountability - Proposition 46

Proposition 46 is a Must

The status quo in California simply will not do for another 38 years.  Careless and even impaired doctors are not being held accountable, and this needs to end for the benefit of all who receive health care in this State.  The California Medical Board is so ineffective that they have been threatened with dissolution by the State legislature.  It is up to the victims of malpractice and their families to ensure accountability for the doctors who have made so many suffer.  Medical errors are the number three cause of death in this country!

Don't be fooled by an overwhelming and misleading ad campaign by the malpractice insurance industry. No amount of advertising rhetoric can change the fact that California has a 38-year-old law on the books that unfairly protects negligent doctors from being held accountable. #VOTEYESON46 

CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 46 - WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE YES

Medical Malpractice and Proposition 46 - What You Should Know

Next week, Californians will have the opportunity to vote on a ballot measure directed at the State's 38-year-old law which currently limits the general damages recoverable in a medical malpractice action to $250,000.00. Also contained within Proposition 46 are provisions aimed at drug testing doctors and imposing certain rules on the prescribing of controlled substances. While opponents have attacked the measure as a whole, the primary argument from the opposition is directed at the increase in the malpractice damages cap.

The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1976 and The Damages Cap

The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1976 (MICRA), was enacted by the California legislature as a way to protect doctors (actually their malpractice insurance carriers) from high damage awards. There can be no disputing the result of the initiative's passage: it worked. Since MICRA became the law in this State, malpractice awards for physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement, physical impairment, inconvenience, grief, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress have been limited to no more than $250,000.00.  This is true regardless of the age of the victim or whether the patient died as a result of the malpractice.  Simply stated, that limit no longer represents even a remotely fair amount of compensation to victims of medical neglect.  

When a child is blinded or loses a limb or a mother dies leaving behind a husband and her children, it is easy to see that compensation to the aggrieved family should be much higher than $250,000.00, particularly in today's economy.  If the absurdity of this antiquated law is not readily apparent on its face, MICRA's limitation on damages need only be compared to that of California's neighboring States.  Nevada's limit is $350,000.00, Arizona's is $500,000.00 and Oregon has determined that ANY limit is unconstitutional.  California should not have a substantially lower limit than neighboring States where the cost of living is much less.  It makes no sense that malpractice insurance carriers (who have spent MILLIONS opposing Proposition 46) are dictating what you and your family will recover should you fall victim to a negligent doctor.  If the unfairness of this antiquated law is still not clear, consider the following realities of medical malpractice lawsuits in general:

• Physicians prevail at trial the vast majority of the time (better than 90% in Orange County)
• Few attorneys will even take medical malpractice cases because of the expense of experts (who often charge thousands of dollars just to review a potential case)
• Locating qualified experts willing to testify on behalf of the victim is extremely difficult
• Defense experts will often bend the truth in order to defend a colleague

The civil justice system grossly mistreats victims of medical malpractice, and the quality of care has devolved over the years.  Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in this country, and it is time to turn this around.  VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 46. 

OC Hospitals See Downward Trend in Report

Nearly a third of California’s hospitals had worse in-patient death rates for various procedures and conditions than the statewide average during the two-year period, between 2010 and 2011, according to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development.  

The report, released on Monday, documents Inpatient Mortality Indicators (IMIs) for California hospitals in an effort to improve the quality of patient care and to help consumers make more informed healthcare decisions, among other reasons.  Interestingly, Orange County Hospitals fared pretty well in the 2010-2011 study.

Orange County Hospital Ratings

In the 2011 report from the OSHPD, Orange County hospitals received seven "Better" ratings and only three "Worse" ratings than the Statewide averages for the particular procedure performed or condition treated.  While this would seem to be a solid performance for 2011, the ratings of Orange County hospitals in 2010 were actually better.  In fact, in 2010 Orange County facilities received fourteen "Better" ratings and only three "Worse" ratings.  It is unknown whether this downward trend is a reflection of a drop in the quality of care or simply a statistically insignificant change.  

Medical Malpractice in Orange County

In spite of the number of patient injuries and deaths documented in Orange County each year, very few patients or their families are actually compensated for their losses.  Malpractice lawsuits in this county rarely result in a verdict in favor of the patient, and doctors/hospitals prevail the vast majority of the time.  Unfortunately, juries tend to favor doctors, and that bias translates into defense verdicts and physicians being held accountable for their mistakes only a small percentage of the time.  

If you or a loved one has been injured by what you believe is medical neglect, contacting an Orange County malpractice attorney is likely the best, first step toward determining whether you have a valid case.

SOURCE:  AHRQ - Inpatient Quality Indicators (IQIs), Hospital Inpatient Mortality Indicators for California, 2010 and 2011, Office of Statewide Health Panning and Development, June 10, 2013

Lawmakers Criticize California Medical Board

Last week a letter from California lawmakers to the State's Medical Board implored the agency to do a better job of monitoring doctors and the quality of care they provide.  According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, the Board was even threatened with dissolution unless "significant progress" was demonstrated in terms of protecting patients from dangerous doctors.  If the legislative committee charged with overseeing the Board does not "receive firm commitments from the board" showing significant progress in these and other areas, the agency may be dissolved as of January 1, 2014.

The Medical Board Standards

What this letter from State lawmakers says about the protection of patients in California is, to say the least, unsettling.  Doctors who pose a significant threat to the public are being allowed to continue practicing medicine, heightening the risk of injury and death to their patients.  The standards by which doctors are measured in a Medical Board action requires egregious misconduct before discipline can be imposed.  In spite of this, far too many physicians are actually breaching these standards and suffering no consequences.  More specifically, in a Medical Board action the physician must commit “gross negligence”, and there must be “clear and convincing evidence to a reasonable certainty”.  Under the law, "gross negligence" consists of a lack of even scant care or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.  What the legislative committee above has found is that even though these standards are being breached, doctors are not being disciplined.

Medical Negligence Cases in California

Absent the Medical Board ensuring a minimum level of competence in the profession, medical malpractice suits might seem like a way to maintain a certain quality of medical practice.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The reality is that physicians are put on a pedestal by jurors, and verdicts against doctors are an extreme rarity.  For example, in Orange County physicians who are sued by their patients prevail in more than 90% of the cases filed against them.  Even where the evidence is overwhelming, malpractice insurers refuse to settle claims, and juries almost never hold doctors accountable.  Undeniably deserving patients are sent away with nothing, and incompetent doctors continue practicing with impunity.  

If you or a family member have been harmed by medical neglect, you should do all you can to ensure the responsible physician is held accountable.  Bringing these tragic stories to the attention of key lawmakers (Senator Curren D. Price, Jr., and Assemblyman Rich Gordon) might just give victims in California a chance to be heard.

Contact an Orange County malpractice attorney to find out more about your rights.

SOURCE:  Legislators threaten to kill state medical board, Los Angeles Times, Local, April 11, 2013, by  Lisa Girion and Scott Glover

California's Medical Malpractice System

If you believe you or a family member have been a victim of medical malpractice you should be aware of some of the most important provisions of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA).  This enactment more than 35 years ago imposes certain restrictions and limitations on civil actions that most malpractice victims would likely consider unfair, or at least outdated.  If you believe a doctor or other health care professional has committed malpractice, below are some of the California rules you should keep in mind before filing such a case.

First, unlike other types of personal injury lawsuits (in which the statute of limitations is two years), an action against a health care provider must generally be filed within one year from the date of the alleged malpractice.  The timing for cases involving small children is, however, considerably longer.  Additionally unlike other defendants in injury cases, a health care provider is entitled to a 90-day warning that a lawsuit is going to be filed.  In theory, the Notice of Intent was intended to allow the health care provider the opportunity to resolve meritorious claims before a lawsuit is filed and the reputation of the doctor further tarnished.  In practice, this almost never works as medical negligence cases are rarely settled before a lawsuit is filed with the court.

Perhaps the next most important difference between medical malpractice lawsuits and those involving other types of personal injury claims is what is commonly referred to as the "MICRA cap".  Under the rules enacted more than 3 decades ago, the limitation on recovery for pain and suffering (so-called "non-economic" damages) is $250,000.00.  There is generally no limitation whatsoever in other types of personal injury cases.  The absurdity of this rule is perhaps best demonstrated by the following: If a physician were to carelessly run you over in his car on his way to the hospital one day (causing injuries requiring amputation of both legs), you would be able to recover the full amount of your injuries and damages against the doctor, in the millions of dollars.  However, if that same physician on the same day committed medical malpractice during your care, causing you to lose both legs, your compensation for exactly the same injuries would be only $250,000.00.  Maybe this limit was fair and justified back in 1975.  However, more than 35 years later (with not so much as a penny increase for the inflation/cost of living rate) it often works a substantial injustice in today's world.

Finally, in California courtrooms and particularly those in Orange County, juries very often favor the physician and his or her side of any malpractice case.  Generally speaking, physicians prevail in roughly 90% of the medical malpractice cases going to a verdict in Orange County courtrooms.  That juror bias is often difficult to offset, even in the strongest of cases.  This, and the MICRA cap referenced above, generally translate to lower settlement values, even for very strong cases.

Fair compensation for victims of medical malpractice should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a physician carelessly harms a patient, they should be held accountable.  An Orange County medical malpractice lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has over 21 years of experience handling personal injury and medical malpractice cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a loved one been the victim of medical malpractice?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.

Is Weight Loss Surgery Worth The Risk?

A new study at Stanford University has revealed that "minimally-invasive" weight loss surgery is "safer" than an open procedure.  The minimally invasive surgery is performed via a scope with only small incisions being made in the abdomen, the laparoscopic technique.  The open procedure involves a more traditional, larger abdominal incision.  According to the study, fewer patients undergoing the minimally-invasive weight loss surgery suffer complications, and they tend to leave the hospital sooner.  

See the Fox News report and article summary HERE.  

While there are a number of different approaches to weight loss surgery, all of the techniques generally involve reducing the size of the stomach to lessen food intake and calorie absorption.  No matter how performed, these surgeries carry with them substantial complication rates.  For example, the researchers in this new study found about 1 in 5 patients undergoing open surgery had at least one complication -- such as developing pneumonia or needing a blood transfusion -- compared to just over 1 in 8 patients who had less-invasive surgery.  There is also a death rate among open procedure patients of 1 in 500 and a rate of about 1 in 1,000 among those who had laparoscopic surgery.  If all of this were not enough, the failure rate among all weight loss surgeries is reportedly as high as 30%.  This is apparently to say nothing of the rate of malpractice committed by weight loss surgeons, which does not appear to have been the subject of any study.  With all of this to be taken into account, is weight loss surgery really safe?

Compensation for victims of medical malpractice committed by weight loss surgeons should be an important concern for all Californians.  When a physician carelessly harms a patient, they should be held accountable.  An Orange County medical malpractice lawyer with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims.  Mr. Ralph has over 21 years of experience handling personal injury and medical malpractice cases, including just this type.  He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.

Have you or a loved one been the victim of a botched weight loss procedure?

Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter.  A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.