The cost of the entire medical liability system–which means payments, awards, litigation costs, attorney fees, expert witnesses, etc.–is less than six tenths of one percentof the overall cost of health care in this county.  So much for medical malpractice as a driver of escalating health care costs.

The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit citizens™ advocacy group Public Citizen published an extensive review of the National Practitioner Data Bank data.  Among the organization™s findings was that health care spending rose 90 percent between 2000 and 2010 while medical malpractice payments decreased almost 12 percent.  So actual payments to victims of malpractice are seeing less and less compensation.

In spite of this data that malpractice costs are historically low while actual instances of malpractice continue to increase, doctors are winning more than half of cases that independent experts conclude they should lose and nearly one hundred percent of cases where the independents experts believe there is no liability. 

The net effect is that doctors are shielded from responsibility for their ever-increasing rate of negligence by a pool of potential jurors seek to punish the innocent victim.  So who are the real winners of the so-called “lawsuit lottery”?

Precedent is supposed to make our legal system consistent and predictable.  We even have a Latin phrase for it: stare decisis.  However, when you are a results- and ideologically-driven Court, what do you do when the precedent is in favor of the other guys (gals here, for sure)?  The answer: ignore it!

When courts make case-by-case decisions, the integrity of our system is undermined.  But that is a theoretical point.  The practical point is the way decisions like this are reported.  When a progressive cause wins it is due to judicial activisim and chalked up to liberals’ disregard for the rules.  When a conservative cause wns, the headlines range from “Greedy Trial Lawyers Lose Payday!” to “Frivolous Claims Rejected!”.  How is that possible when the rules, as in the Wal- Mart case, should have led to a different result?  Where is the mainstream reporting on conservative judicial activism?

These rear guards are the primary countermeasure for reducing deaths and injuries when a passenger vehicle crashes into the back of a tractor-trailer, says Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

The Institute is petitioning the federal government to require stronger underride guards that will remain in place during a crash–and to mandate guards for those large trucks and trailers that are not currently required to have them.

In 2009, 70 percent of the 3,163 people who died in all large truck crashes were occupants of cars or other passenger vehicles, Lund said. In many of these crashes, the upper part of a passenger vehicle’s cabin was crushed when the body of the truck or trailer smashed through the vehicle’s safety cage.

“The way passenger cars are designed, if you crash into another passenger car, the front-end structures can withstand and distribute a tremendous amount of crash energy, in a way that minimizes injuries for vehicle occupants,” says Lund. “But hitting the back of a large truck is a totally different situation. Your vehicle could be one that earns top marks in frontal crash tests, but if that truck’s underride guard fails — or if the truck doesn’t have one at all — your chances of walking away from even a relatively low-speed crash are not good at all.”

The point of this research is simple: you are only as safe as the most unsafe vehicle on the road, so be alert!

No illnesses have been linked to the recall of the Skippy reduced fat creamy and reduced fat chunky brands.

Unilever United States Inc. did not specify how many jars have been recalled. They are packaged in 16.3 oz. plastic jars with used-by dates of May 16-21, 2012.

Unilever detected possible salmonella through its own testing. Salmonella can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with weakened immune systems.

Proponents of tort reform favor caps on damages for victims of medical negligence say that damage caps–a limit of a negligent doctor’s liability–protect innocent doctors from so-called “frivolous” lawsuits.  Retired Judge H. Lee Sarokin, who spent 17 years on the federal bench, pointed out the absurdity of that logic in a recent article on The Huffington Post:

“Under what other circumstances would we punish persons who have legitimate claims because others have filed   frivolous ones? Do we reduce Medicare payments to honest doctors because others have made fraudulent claims? I suspect that Medicare fraud claims both in number and amount exceed frivolous malpractice claims a thousand fold.”

With respect to the filing of medical negligence lawsuits, Judge Sarokin also noted:

“The medical profession should be reminded that no medical malpractice case is begun or survives without one of its own members confirming that the defendant doctor or hospital is guilty of malpractice. Lawyers do not make those decisions; doctors do.”

Judge Sarokin’s final analysis on the issue of medical negligence:

“I recognize that it is an undisputed fact that doctors are giving up or changing the nature of their practice due to rising malpractice insurance premiums. But to me the idea of punishing those with legitimate claims and reducing the awards they would otherwise receive hardly seems a fair way to address the problem. The courts have a mechanism for dealing with excessive verdicts that has the merit of deciding them on a case-by-case basis predicated upon the evidence rather than some arbitrary cap. Better to place a cap on malpractice premiums and require the carriers to justify increases rather than reduce the compensation of those who have been injured. Of the three involved, the victim of malpractice, the doctor or hospital guilty of malpractice and the carrier insuring that guilty doctor or hospital, the victim should not be the first, but rather the last, to be punished.”

Ohio already has some of the strictest tort reform laws in the country, requiring victims of medical negligence to file their claim in court within one year of the alleged malpractice as well as damage caps and the requirement that all complaints filed in court be accompanied by an affidavit of merit.  The affidavit of merit is sworn by a doctor to verify that the case is not frivolous.

Where do you think the political football of victim’s rights should end up?  Do you think that people with legitimate claims should be penalized?

5. Resolve to remember the important role organized labor played in making the modern work and family balance possible, including 40 hour work weeks, weekends, and vacations.  In other words, the American Dream for the middle class.  This resolution is important because the history of the labor movement is under a constant assault from revisionists who have fallen prey to anti-union smear campaigns.

4. Resolve to thoroughly research all options when evaluating nursing home choices for your loved ones.  Nursing homes are for-profit organizations run, often, by big businesses who slash operating costs at the expense of quality resident care.  Make sure you meet the social worker, find out about all recreation activities, as well as the number of staff on duty to assist your loved one when they need anything.

3. Resolve to learn everything you can about your auto insurance policy.  We’ve written about the need for uninsured/underinsured coverage for your automobiles due to the high number of uninsured drivers as well as the proliferation of state minimum insurance policies.  The new year is a great time to make sure you and your family are properly covered.

2. Resolve to be a safe and attentive driver.  Always wear your seatbelt, never text while driving, and only get behind the wheel when  you are rested.  There are enough negligent drivers on the road and you should not add to the total.

1. Resolve to have a happy, safe, and prosperous new year!

• It’s after work on a snowy day–it’s been snowing all week in fact–and you need to stop at the grocery store.  Naturally, you cannot find a parking space anywhere near the door so you park and start to walk through the parking lot.  You’re bundled up, but you can see and the lot is lighted pretty well.  The wind picks up as you’re walking so you try to quicken your pace and hurry toward the door when you fall in a pot hole.  You hadn’t seen the pothole when you were walking but now you notice it’s about one foot square and three inches deep.  Now that you think about it, the whole lot seems to be covered in pot holes. 
• You stand up and dust yourself off, trying to make sure that you’re OK.  Once you’re situated you continue toward the door.  As you step inside you finally relax as you feel the heat.  You turn to grab a cart and start your shopping when you slip again on the melting snow inside the door.  There are no ”Wet Floor” or “Caution” signs anywhere–there isn’t even a rubber mat or carpet for wiping your shoes.  Once again, you try to shake off the fall and you head into the store.
• You make it through the rest of your shopping trip unscathed and you’re back in the car heading home.  The last thing you need to do is stop by a friend’s house and drop off a movie you borrowed.  When you pull into his driveway you notice that no one has shoveled it or the walkway to the door.  You make it out of your car but slip on the ice and snow on the sidewalk.

I hope you never have a day that bad!  But what if something like this happened to you and, even worse, you suffer an injury?  Who’s responsible for the bills?  The short answer to the scenarios is that you’re responsible each time.  The Ohio Supreme Court has made it almost impossible to bring a claim against a property owner through defense like “open and obvious” (the pothole and the wet slippery floor) and “natural accumulation” (the snow in the driveway).

Do these results seem fair to you? 

Insurance companies make significant profits by preying on accident victims in their time of weakness.  These profits are made despite a shocking rise in consumer complaints against insurance companies.  The business model is simple: accident victims are vulnerable and, often, desperately need the funds owed to them under an insurance policy for home repairs, auto repairs, or medical bills.  To an insurance company, your desperation means that you will accept less money than you are owed in order to end the nightmare that is the claims handling process.  They also know you might become so frustrated that you give up entirely. 

Insurance companies will continue these practices regardless of how many consumer complaints are filed as long as the profits continue to roll in.  My colleagues and I at Gallon, Takacs, Boissoneault & Schaffer have dedicated ourselves to fighting the insurance companies.  Do you have a claim that is being undervalued or even denied by an insurance company?  If you do, let me know about.  I am here to help.

The proposed ordinance includes: 

• a 15-minute limit for chaining a dog outside unsupervised
• a prohibtion against chaining a dog within 500 feet of a school.
• An escalating scale of fines for unprovoked dog bites. Penalties would rise from $150 to $500 to $1,000, and could include mandatory pet ownership classes or community service with an animal welfare organization.
• New “level one” and “level two” threat classifications for dogs.
• Restrictions against leaving a dog unattended for more than 24 hours.
• Mandatory spay or neuter surgery at the owner’s expense for dogs caught running at large more than once.
• The ability to seize the dogs of owners deemed reckless.

The proposed ordinance is the most recent attempt by the City to curb dog-related violence.  A previous ordinance, which placed restrictions on “pit bulls” and “pit bull” mixes was declared unconstitutional by the Toledo Municipal Court in January.  The proposed ordinance would required approval from the Toledo City Council to become law.

What do you think of the proposed ordinance?  Do you know of anyone who has been bitten by a dog?