Comments on: Another indication that HPM is becoming more mainstream? http://www.aahpm.org/apps/blog/?p=832 Physicians caring for patients with serious illness. Thu, 07 Feb 2013 01:31:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: dspacl http://www.aahpm.org/apps/blog/?p=832&cpage=1#comment-1758 dspacl Thu, 26 Aug 2010 04:20:05 +0000 http://www.awebsource.com/clients/aahpm/blog/?p=832#comment-1758 Sad, but true; that we have arrived as a specialty when the trial lawyers have figured out how to exploit the unusual outcomes of a medical specialty. Even more unusual is the live discharge of a patient with biopsy proven bilateral disease. One thing that strikes me is the willingness of our "colleagues" to take the bait (thousands of dollars) when a plaintiff attorney goes trolling for an "expert". Sounds like the PCP was solicited in a similar manner. Science and the principles of practice go out the window. Especially when it progresses to trial in front of a "jury of our peers". Having given defense testimony in a few nursing home cases, two of which also named the hospice as defendents, I can tell you that once they get the case on the docket, they usually drop the doctor, because they have a hard time proving that malpractice did in fact occur, because it usually didn't. They (the plaintiff attys) just need to get an expert to say that whatever happened fell below the standard of care. The original cause of action doesn't matter beyond the filing. All that needs to be done from that point is to make the NH/Hospice appear to be bad guys. It can happen to me. It can happen to anyone. It's like being in a foxhole. You can be a sharpshooter, but when random bullets are flying you may get hit. Then some trial lawyer has theory to expand on. One case I was on, the plaintiff attorney derided the services of the hospice as poor treatment "under the rubric of palliative care". Sorry to hear that your patient now has extensive disease. I hope he's spent his settlement well. Serious irony any way you look at it. Your point is well taken. I guess we have arrived! Sad, but true; that we have arrived as a specialty when the trial lawyers have figured out how to exploit the unusual outcomes of a medical specialty. Even more unusual is the live discharge of a patient with biopsy proven bilateral disease.

One thing that strikes me is the willingness of our “colleagues” to take the bait (thousands of dollars) when a plaintiff attorney goes trolling for an “expert”. Sounds like the PCP was solicited in a similar manner.
Science and the principles of practice go out the window. Especially when it progresses to trial in front of a “jury of our peers”.

Having given defense testimony in a few nursing home cases, two of which also named the hospice as defendents, I can tell you that once they get the case on the docket, they usually drop the doctor, because they have a hard time proving that malpractice did in fact occur, because it usually didn’t. They (the plaintiff attys) just need to get an expert to say that whatever happened fell below the standard of care. The original cause of action doesn’t matter beyond the filing. All that needs to be done from that point is to make the NH/Hospice appear to be bad guys.

It can happen to me. It can happen to anyone. It’s like being in a foxhole. You can be a sharpshooter, but when random bullets are flying you may get hit. Then some trial lawyer has theory to expand on. One case I was on, the plaintiff attorney derided the services of the hospice as poor treatment “under the rubric of palliative care”.

Sorry to hear that your patient now has extensive disease. I hope he’s spent his settlement well. Serious irony any way you look at it. Your point is well taken. I guess we have arrived!

]]> /** Add snippet of Google Analytics code */