The Bright Line Business Law Blog

A Southern California lawyer defending small businesses and their insurance companies searches for certainty in the law.

My Photo

About

Other useful sites

  • Smith, Smith & McFaul
  • Seach California Bar Membership
  • FindLaw
  • Orange County CA Superior Court Home Page
  • Los Angeles County Superior Court
  • Riverside County Superior Court
  • My Wife's Virtual Art Gallery
  • My Wife's "Brick and Mortar" Art Gallery
  • Judicate West
  • Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS)
  • Secretary Of State Portal, Corporations/LLC's
  • Maribeth's Online Gallery

Law Weblogs

  • Overlawyered
  • The Best Orange County Family Law Specialists
  • PointofLaw: opinion on the U.S. litigation system
  • Insurance Defense Blog
  • HealthLawBlog
  • Blog 702
  • The Volokh Conspiracy
  • Mirror of Justice
  • Ernie the Attorney

Legal Writing Resources

  • The Word Detective
  • Acronym Finder
  • Online Thesaurus
  • Brayn Gardner's Legal Writing in Plain English
  • Grammar Guide
  • Phrase Finder
  • Online Dictionary (Merriam-Webster)
Blog powered by Typepad
Subscribe to this blog's feed

Medical Malpractice Myths

William Brody, President of Johns Hopkins, has a great article in the Washington Post on myths of Medical Malpractice.

Here's a sample:

And a recent study by Harvard University researchers found that 80 percent of malpractice claims were filed against doctors who had made no error whatever. For instance, recent articles in scientific journals have documented that many, if not most, cases of birth-related cerebral palsy -- cases in which juries tend to be highly sympathetic to plaintiffs -- are not the result of malpractice by obstetricians. Juries often deliver sizable awards against providers who commit no errors for what are unfavorable, but random, outcomes of nature.

And one chief culprit is a failure of judges to control expert witness testimony.  Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court declared that federal judges were the "gatekeepers" and should keep junk science and unsubstantiated expert opinions from the jury.  If the quoted paragraph is true, that is not happening at the state level, and I know it is not happening in California, where the courts have particularly disclaimed the gatekeeper role in medical malpractice cases.  A typical example of this is Roberti v. Andy's Termite and Pest Control 113, Cal.App.4d 893, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 827. In that case, plaintiff offered medical expert testimony that  Dursban caused plaintiffs autism.  The trial judge applying California's equivalent of Daubert, the Kelly test, wouldn't permit the expert to testify. [People v. Kelly, 17 Cal.3d 24, 130 Cal.Rptr. 144, 549 P.2d 1240 (1976)]

The court of Appeal reversed, holding that the Kelly analysis only applies to novel scientific evidence or techniques, not to expert opinion of medical causation even if the expert opinion on causation had not gained general acceptance in the relevant medical community.  The court of appeals specifically rejected defendant's suggestion that California courts employ the Daubert gatekeeper analysis. This allows all kinds of wild medical theories to be admissible and explains why cerebral palsy cases are so lucrative even though there is no scientific connection between the medical services rendered and the cerebral palsy.

Potentially, it is possible that a medical expert's opinion is just too conclusory, or in the words of one medical expert, "It just sort of makes sense." Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc., 114 Cal.App4th 1108, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 363 (2004). But, such rulings are too rare. If courts would act more like gatekepers and more frequently exclude dubious opinions, then there may be a reduction in unfounded medical malpractice cases.

November 19, 2004 in Frivolous lawsuits, Improving the system | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Proposition 64 Passes, Good News for Small Businesses

Election results show California Proposition 64 passing. Proposition 64 made relatively minor changes to Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and 17500, the California Unfair Business Practices Act and Unfair Competition Act.

Prior to the Initiative, any person could file a complaint against any business entity for unspecified "unfair business practices." Nearly anything could be characterized as unfair competition or unfair business practices. Typically an unscrupulous lawyer "plaintiff" would sue an unsuspecting business under the act and then offer to dismiss the suit for a "reasonable" sum of money, usually $5,000 or so. They would count on the defendant's own lawyer telling the defendant that extortion settlement was cheaper than litigation. Most settled.

Now, the initiative has changed the standing requirement. Any City attorney, district attorney or the Attorney General's office can file suit under the Unfair Business Practices Act, as they always could. However, private citizens who also could previously sue under the act, can now sue only if that private citizen has "suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property" as a result of any unfair business practices. This modest change in the law will allow defendants who are unfairly sued to have non-meritorious cases economically dismissed very early in the proceedings.  I predict that the rampant abuses under the law will dramatically decline.

Here is the text of the Inititative, with additional information.

November 09, 2004 in Frivolous lawsuits, Improving the system, Insurance issues, Small Business Issues | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

« Previous

Categories

  • Frivolous lawsuits (14)
  • Improving the system (12)
  • Insurance issues (5)
  • Legal Writing-The Crusade for Plain English (3)
  • Science (6)
  • Small Business Issues (5)
See More

Recent Posts

  • These are two beautiful watercolors
  • Sandra Day O'Conner resigns
  • Trolling for clients on the internet
  • "Aye" says the parrot, "Always tell the truth, argh!"
  • Bendectin may be back
  • Small Business Scam
  • Legal Writing: Step 2 Now, Make Your Point
  • CDC backs off Mold Claim
  • That'd be me
  • Common Good: Common Good's Second Annual Gatekeeper Awards

Archives

  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004