Illinois Medical Malpractice Blog

Our Illinois medical malpractice lawyers believe that the rights of injured victims should never be compromised on behalf of well-funded big interests. Virtually all tort reform legislation which would take away victims’ rights is unnecessary and damaging. However, even those who feel that certain, limited reforms need to be enacted are capable of noticing extremely misguided proposals like that advocated in H.R. 5.

The 7th Amendment Advocate recently posted a story explaining how more and more so-called tort reformers are stepping up and admitting that H.R. 5, or the HEALTH Act, constitutes a blatant federal government overreach that cannot be tolerated. Yet another pro-tort reform scholar this week declared that Congress cannot “impermissibly federalize all medical malpractice litigation.”

The academic joins various other scholars who are calling out Republican supporters of the bill who claim to be against federal government overreach but then support unprecedented federalization of state tort law. There is no logical basis for tort reformers to pretend that they are acting consistently if they are against expansion of federal powers to also support overhauls like H.R. 5. As this latest scholar has noted, it is unacceptable for principles to be abandoned by those who so eagerly want to strip those who file Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits of their right to have a jury decide all of the issues of their case. The fact remains that Congress does not have the authority to enact tort reform legislation that would completely overhaul state decisions about state rules in state claims heard in state courts.

Continue reading "Even Tort Reform Advocates Find Fault with H.R. 5" »

Many national lawmakers are standing firm against the misguided, hypocritical efforts to take away the rights of medical malpractice victims. We’ve continually documented the misleading claims made by proponents of tort “reform,” and the direct constitutional mandates standing in opposition to it.

However, those seeking to take away judicial decisions from juries remain committed to the measure, pushing forward legislation in Congress that seeks to enshrine anti-victim principles. If passed, the legislation would have debilitating effects on all Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits.

Fortunately, there are many members of Congress who are stepping up to confront the distortions made about medical malpractice claims and concerns, according to Boston.com. Even the President, who suggested he was open to some compromise on the issue during his State of the Union address, is clearly opposed to some of the most arbitrary “reform” measures. For example, he opposes malpractice damage award caps. The caps would create arbitrary award limits, regardless of jury decisions and without any thought to the specifics of each case.

Those who work with victims of medical malpractice are well aware that awards by juries in civil cases represent one of the only ways for negligent medical professionals to be held accountable for their conduct.

US Senator Patty Murray explained, “I’m not going to throw people under the bus and say if something happens to you, you are not going to have the support you need.”

Continue reading "Illinois Medical Malpractice Reform Watch—Many Legislators Stand Against “Reform” Claims" »

Earlier this week we shared information from the 7th Amendment Advocate that put the debate about tort reform into a constitutional context. Respect for the Bill of Right demands that all of the guarantees promised by our Founders be understood and protected. That includes the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in civil matters. Doing otherwise would undermine the important Constitutional mandate, increase the scope of the federal government power, and limit the rights of individual citizens—all things most conservatives work to reject.

The 7th Amendment Advocate created a laundry list of specific reasons that all constitutional conservatives should stand arm in arm against so-called malpractice reforms (like the recently introduced bill in Congress, H.R. 5).

For example, the 10th Amendment specifically protects states’ rights. But that federalism principle is destroyed with blanket rules forced upon all states and individuals by Congress. In addition, the passage of this “reform” would simply require more government spending, because victims would be forced to seek public assistance to recover their losses. If the doctors and businesses who negligently cause mistakes are not forced to pay for the losses caused than that duty will fall to the public at large through increased Medicare and Medicaid payments.

The fact remains that the undermining of malpractice victim rights provides a stepping stone to the curtailing of many other rights. Freedoms for religion, gun owners, and the like are all up for grabs if the guarantees of our Founders are treated as little more than suggestions to be taken away upon the whim of certain powerful interests.

Continue reading "Conservative Reasons to Oppose Medical Malpractice “Reform”" »

Misinformation abounds when it comes to tort reform. Public relations teams with insurance companies and other big business have been working for years to manufacture the idea that “frivolous” lawsuits are causing nationwide problems. As we have pointed out repeatedly, the assertions made by proponents of this “reform” are often completely wrong and virtually always overblown.

One filmmaker took to the screen to set the record straight about tort reform with stories about the real lives involved in these lawsuits. Reuters recently discussed the wide support the film—known as “Hot Coffee”—has received from those who’ve seen it. Audiences continue to give it great reviews since its premiere at the Sundance Film Festival.

In it the filmmaker takes a look at the actual individuals behind many of the cases that would be affected by laws limiting victim rights. She explores the infamous McDonalds coffee case, showing the horrific pelvic injuries the elderly victim suffered when a cup of nearly boiling coffee was spilled into her lap. The document reveals how the victim initially only asked the mega-company to pay for her medical bills but was rebuffed by the arrogant corporate giant.

The movie also examines a problem that our Illinois medical malpractice lawyers know well—the widespread use of mandated arbitration clauses. These legal requirements are buried in the fine print of all sorts of agreements. These clauses are used to take away a victim’s right to sue, forcing all disagreement into arbitration hearings. Those hearings are typically skewed toward the big interests, with unique rules and requirements that often work against the victim.

Continue reading "Documentary “Hot Coffee” Sets the Record Straight on Tort Reform Debate" »

The 7th Amendment Advocate recently explained an overlooked concept in the debate about medical malpractice “reform.” Self-defined “conservatives” are usually the ones calling the loudest for rule changes that would cut away at victim’s right to a jury trial. These same individuals often extol the virtue of limited government, promoting policy concepts that keep decision-making power with states and individuals.

Baffling is how these same conservatives fail to recognize the hypocrisy of advocating for medical malpractice “reform” that does nothing more than create blanket rules at the federal life at the expense of states and individual citizens.

As we have repeatedly emphasized on this blog, the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is clear in enshrining the unfettered guarantee of a jury trial in essentially all civil trials. It would be logical for all those who respect the freedoms guaranteed by our Founders to fight against any erosion of those freedoms.

The inconsistent principles advocated by these “reformers” are disturbing, suggesting ulterior motives are behind the claims. The situation is all the more unfortunate because the practical consequences of most medical malpractice legislation is little more than a money grab by the big medical lobby and insurance interests. For example, the current proposal known as H.R. 5 would do nothing to limit medical malpractice; it would impose arbitrary damage awards, change liability rules, and make it much more difficult for injured victims to seek redress from those who harm them carelessly.

Continue reading "The Conservative Case Against Medical Malpractice "Reform"" »

Lawyer bashing and jury ridicule have been commonplace in the recent public discussion about the civil justice system. Certain special interests continue to propagate the belief that “reforms” need to be enacted to improve the system of justice across the country. Most perplexingly, this call for action is done in the name of the Constitution—a perversion of the document at direct odds with the clear intention of our Founders.

Ken Connor, the President of the Center for Just Society eloquently explained how these political calls for medical malpractice reform seemingly ignore the 7th Amendment to the Constitution which protects the rights of citizens to jury trials in civil cases. On top of that, the proponents of this “reform” view apparently find little stock in the 9th and 10th Amendment protections that limit federal power and ensure that individual citizen rights and state control are preserved and respected.

Of course the rejection of Constitutional principles is even more disappointing in that it is motivated by efforts to protect wrongdoers from accountability at the expense of the injured victims and their families. Recently introduced legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, known as the HEALTH Act (H.R. 5) is the latest incarnation of this problem.

Ken Connor summarizes the bill as “a federally imposed, top down, one-size-fits-all, special-interest driven emasculation of fundamental constitutional rights, turning victims of medical malpractice and dangerous drugs into constitutional eunuchs.”

The new proposal has a large scope—it applies to medical malpractice lawsuits, nursing home claims, and suits against insurance companies. It includes arbitrary caps on non-economic damages, and shortens the statute of limitations on many acts of negligence. It also eliminates joint and several liability and raises pleading standards. These changes would essentially make it harder for victims to win cases and, even if they are won, harder to collect the entire damage award reached by the jury. Many of these changes preempt state law, overriding the will of state legislators and voters.

Continue reading "Calls for Medical Malpractice Reform Ignore the Constitution" »

Observers of this week’s State of the Union address by President Obama likely noted his mention of the need to improve the country’s medical system. The oration included reference to the recently passed comprehensive health care law. The President explained that he is always open to ideas to improve the legislation, regardless of what political party has the idea.

We continue to applaud the President for his efforts to implement the new health care law and improve the health of millions upon millions of Americans. However, it is unfortunate that the President used the occasion of the State of the Union to throw a bone to the oft-repeated talking point about medical malpractice “reform.” The facts simply do not support the claims that malpractice lawsuits are at the root of any major problem in the healthcare system.

As reported in Politics Daily, the American Association for Justice President Gibson Vance issued a response to President Obama’s inclusion of the misinformed claim. Vance explained again how more than 98,000 patients likely die each year because of medical errors. Those deaths represent a crisis that has not received nearly the recognition it deserves.

In this area, a main reason for the seeming acceptance of high levels of Illinois medical malpractice deaths is the distraction presented by the repetition of falsehoods about “dangerous lawsuits.”

Vance summarizes, “President Obama should direct his focus towards tackling this startling figure, not promoting efforts that could eliminate the legal rights of patients.”

Continue reading "Response to State of the Union Mention of Health Care “Reform”" »

Yet again new federal legislation is attempting to “reform” the medical malpractice system in a way that will do nothing but insulate big business at the expense of malpractice victims. The latest attempt takes the form of H.R. 5—legislation identical to a proposed bill from the last Congress. If passed it would have severe consequences on all Illinois medical malpractice lawsuits.

The same debunked claims about “cost savings” are being put forward by proponents of the legislation. However, as the American Association for Justice pointed out, the money spent on legal defense in medical malpractice lawsuits is drastically exaggerated. In addition, all reasonable estimates reveal little to no actual savings in health care can be created by limiting patients’ legal rights. Those arguments act as nothing more than a smokescreen, raising false concerns in order to benefit big insurance and doctor interests at the expense of regular community members.

This latest bill is particularly troubling because of its large scope—it applies to medical malpractice claims, nursing home claims, and suits against insurance companies. It includes arbitrary caps on non-economic damages, and shortens the statute of limitations on many acts of negligence. It also eliminates joint and several liability and raises pleading standards.

These changes would essentially make it harder for victims to win cases and, even once they’ve been won, harder to collect the entire damage award reached by the jury. Many of these changes preempt state law, meaning that the federal government would be overriding the will of many states, forcing these unfair rules upon them.

Continue reading "Illinois Medical Malpractice Suits May Be Unfairly Limited By New Legislation" »

The attack on the justice system rages on as corporate interests seek “reform” which will take away the rights of certain medical patients to access parts of the legal system. This weekend the State Journal-Register published a letter to the editor written by the president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association which defended the rights of victims.

He explains how the claims for “reform” are almost entirely supported by studies that have been widely shown erroneous. The reports used to support the ideas are funded and organized by the top names in big business—Phillip Morris, General Electric, and others—the ones who stand the most to gain by handcuffing victimized patients’ recovery efforts.

It remains a cornerstone of a system of laws that that when businesses act irresponsibly in ways that harm unsuspecting patients, like creating dangerous drugs or using deceptive practices, they should be held responsible for the damage caused. There is nothing to fear from fairness.

The claims of all those seeking to take away patient rights are growing even more exaggerated by the day. The latest round includes suggestions that the entire ailing U.S. economy can be traced back to lawsuits. Reasonable minds must join to reject these overblown, misleading claims.

Continue reading "Letter From Illinois Trial Lawyer: Legal Rights of Patients Attacked By Corporate Interests" »

When people hear the words “tort reform” they often do not immediately associate the issue to something found directly within the United States Constitution. However, as the American Association for Justice President wrote in the Huffington Post last week, the rights being fought for in the tort reform debate are part of our nation’s foundational document.

The 7th Amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, specifically guarantees the right of Americans to a trial by jury. The promise has even deeper roots, found 800 years ago in England’s Magna Carta. The Founders understood that right. Thomas Jefferson explained that jury trials in civil cases (like malpractice) were “the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

However, big business and insurance efforts to strip medical patients of that right threatens the very foundation of the 7th Amendment. These interests seek to undermine the ability of victims to share their story with a jury and allow them to a return a verdict. Instead, they prefer a system that takes away decision-making power from a jury and replaces it with automatic rules from which they benefit.

All those who respect the vision of our Founders and the mandates of our Bill of Rights should stand arm in arm against attempts to undermine our system with alleged “tort reform.”

Continue reading "U.S. Constitution Protects Patients Rights to Medical Malpractice Jury Trial" »

The new Congress that was sworn into office in Washington D.C. last week will soon begin debating a variety of hot button issues. Many of those matters will be of particular interest to all those concerned with the fair treatment for medical patients. In particular, the specter of medical malpractice “reform” will once again rear its head in many committee debates and policy calls.

In that discussion a claim will often be made about “savings” to be had if tort reform legislation is passed. The basis for that claim is generally linked to a single Congressional Budget Office analysis from a year and a half ago. That analysis has been shown severely flawed, as with so much of the information used to push the takeaway of legal rights for patients. The Center for Justice and Democracy published a detailed examination of the errors in the CBO analysis.

Overall, the claims of money saved are taken almost solely from a handful of studies that actually contradict one another. One of those studies even goes so far as to claim that changes to the current structure would allow may cause more than 50,000 more people to die from medical errors each year—on top of the almost 98,000 who already do.

The CBO analysis uses an extreme form of tort reform legislation that no single state has ever accepted, including a hard $250,000 limit on non-economic damages and a one year statute of limitations on claims. The group’s own evidence also suggests that these reforms may actually increase costs, not save them. In states with the most widely used type of reform—limits on joint and several liability—the costs of healthcare actually increased following the legislation.

Continue reading "No Financial Savings To Be Had With Medical Malpractice Reform" »

One of the many tools in the arsenal of big interests seeking to limit patient rights is the claim that malpractice lawsuits encourage costly defensive medicine. The assumption is then made that these unnecessary medical steps lead to increases in the cost of healthcare. That was the refrain used by many members of Congress this week as the U.S. House gears up for its seemingly symbolic vote to repeal the recently passed healthcare legislation.

However, as a recent Huffington Post article explains, the claims made about the effect of “defensive medicine” on costs are virtually unproven. In most cases the idea is generated solely by doctor surveys organized by the very groups who stand to benefit from claims about rising healthcare costs. When pressed further most of these groups have a difficult time identifying what exactly constitutes defensive medicine.

Even more evidence continues to pour in that shows that increased testing is most frequently done because of the fee for service Medicare guidelines that incentivize overuse of procedures. Regardless, Medicare rules would forbid performing tests that are unnecessary except to defend against lawsuits. In other words, if defensive medicine is used, it is illegal and should be rooted out.

Continue reading "The Truth About Defensive Medicine" »

The President of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association recently sent a letter to the editor that was published in the Quad Cities Dispatch. The crux of the letter was an attempt to set the record straight about recent claims being pushed by the Illinois Medical Society—the lobbying arm of doctors in the state.

The group attempted to use a self-created survey to claim that new graduating doctors from Illinois medical schools were fleeing the state because of malpractice lawsuits. The reality is much different. Even the survey itself admits that many Illinois markets, including Chicago, are “oversaturated” with doctors. That means that the area has more doctors than is otherwise needed based on the population. No honest claims can be made about doctor shortages.

Those doctors who leave the state are shown to be motivated by two factors: job opportunities and to fulfill prior plans. In other words, the fear of malpractice liability in Illinois specifically is of little to no consequence. Instead, as one would expect, the new graduates leave the state to locations where jobs are more promising because there is not oversaturation. Alternatively, many new doctors never intended to practice in Illinois.

The facts are simple. The number of doctors in Illinois has been increasing steadily in recent years. It has never declined in the last 45 years.

Continue reading "Debunking Claims About Doctors in Illinois Leaving Because of Medical Malpractice Lawsuits" »

The war to take away victim rights continued today with the release of a “judicial hellhole” report by a front group for big business. The American Tort Reform Association is an organization propped up by corporate interests like Dow Chemical, Exxon, Pfizer, and others. Their goal is to influence the passage of legislation that will ensure that people who fall victim to their negligence will have less ability to seek justice in the court system.

In a response president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association explains that the latest report is nothing more than a stunt to further the corporate “tort reform” agenda. The fact remains that both victims and potential tortfeasors deserve a fair hearing in the civil justice system. Instead, the big businesses want to stack the deck so that they do not even have to present their case in court. They’d prefer a “free pass” any time that they injure consumers and engage in dangerous or unfair practices.

No community is improved when corporate interests are allowed to meddle with the justice system for its own gain. It is imperative that the common sense political forces stand up to this blatant misuse of business power and influence. Major CEOs and small-town working people deserve the same legal rights. It’s a simple principle that must be preserved.

Continue reading "Big Business Attempt to Take Away Legal Rights" »

An opinion editorial recently in the New York Times suggested increasing ways to immunize doctors for malpractice liability. However, the respected economist’s article missed a few major points concerning the legal issues surrounding the health and well-being of injured patients. The AAJ penned a response to the editorial to highlight those discrepancies and omissions.

First, the AAJ noted that it is impractical to craft specific guidelines to keep some doctors free from liability for the medical mistakes that they make. As with all additional layers of beuracracy, piling new guidelines on top of existing regimes typically takes years to create and rarely have beneficial effects upon their implementation. Besides that, standards vary significantly in different areas and often need to remain flexible to account for the supreme goal: the proper care of the patient.

Second, cries for immunity simply ignore the very real and growing problem of medical errors that continue to poison our health-care system. With a death toll reaching toward 100,000 each year and a cost of $29 billion annually, focus needs to return on eliminating mistakes not making excuses for them.

Third, the current legal framework allows for significant immunity in that states with medical caps virtually forbid certain patient victims from having any sort of legal recourse at all. An additional barrier to victim recovery is unwarranted.

Finally, these proposed changes would do little to nothing to reduce the cost of health care. As damage caps have shown, these sort of arbitrary barriers to recovery have not been shown to produce monetary savings. Instead they only stack the odds even more against victims’ ability to seek redress following their suffering.

Medical malpractice is obviously a stark problem that requires focused attention and original thinking. However, our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys at Levin & Perconti strongly believe that the attention needs to be paid on making changes that improve the quality of care, not put barriers up against the victims of the errors.

Medical malpractice caps are a common talking point these days as candidates for public office tout their position on the issue. We have often reiterated the belief of our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys at Levin & Perconti that the caps do nothing more than arbitrarily take away rights of victimized medical patients.

As one victim of medical malpractice explains, “Why can’t you let a jury decide what the true value is—that’s the problem with caps. Until it happens to you, you’re OK with it. It’s easy when it happens to someone else.”

As explained in the Fort Myers News-Press, more reporting out of Florida confirms that many of the often-used reasons for supporting the caps are eventually found to be incorrect when actually applied.

A common refrain is that the fear of medical malpractice lawsuits prompts many doctors to practice defensive medicine that increases costs without noticeable patient benefit. However, the new evidence suggests that medical caps have nothing to do with defensive medicine.

For the past six years Florida has had a cap in place limiting the amount of money a victim of medical error can recover. The new figures explain that physicians in the state continue to order billions of dollars worth of extra tests, regardless of the caps.

Measuring defensive medicine is challenging, because there is no clear line between a test that is necessary and one that is not. But in terms calculated by the American Medical Association, Florida has actually seen an increase in its cost since imposition of the caps on awards in 2004.

Clearly, the issue is not as simple as is often made out by those clamoring to limit the rights of injured patients. Please Click Here to read more about this story and the challenges to lowering health care costs across the country.

The Morris Daily Herald recently posted a series of letters from advocates discussing the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision that found arbitrary caps of damage awards in certain lawsuits to be an unconstitutional abuse of the state legislative power. The state Supreme Court in that recent high-profile case, Abigaile Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, found that a small girl could not be limited in her damage recovery following a medical error that caused devastating injuries.

Travis Akin, executive director of the group Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch (I-LAW) published an article attacking the judges on the Illinois Supreme Court who made the decision. In criticizing the judges he postulated that they have “potentially reopened the floodgates, causing Illinoisans to worry if their doctors will be there when they need them.”

In response to Akin’s position, leaders of the largest public interest organization in Illinois, Citizen Action, wrote into the publication to express support for the state judges and to counter Akin’s misleading statements. As the group points out, far from being “activists"—basing new legal decisions off personal policy preferences—the 4 justices in the majority in the Lebron decision were following a long line of legal precedent dating back thirty five years. The legal principle separating the functions of the legislative branch of the state government and the judicial branch are well-established and important parts of the legal tradition. The law overturned in the case is simply not in compliance with the Constitution created by our state delegates and voted in by the public. We cannot allow one of the three co-equal governing branches infringe on the powers of the other.

Besides the foundational misunderstanding, Citizen Action also pointed out the quantitative evidence which undermines Akin’s position. Far from re-opening so-called “floodgates” of lawsuits, the striking down of the law is unlikely to have any effect other than preserving fairness in the justice system. Before the arbitrary cap was put into place in the state, medical malpractice lawsuits were actually decreasing.

Finally, Citizen Action mentioned the one group often forgotten in talks about medical malpractice—insurance companies. Unlike the unconstitutional law recently struck down by the state high court, a 2005 law that finally required insurance reform has been shown to be working exactly as intended. The law shone light on the rate-setting and payout figures of these companies, which spurred competition and lowered premiums.

Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers at Levin & Perconti understand the emotions involved in the debate about medical malpractice caps. However, our decades of experience fighting for victims of medical errors has made clear that the real danger is not in driving away qualified doctors, but in insulating negligent doctors from taking responsibility for their mistakes. The justice system’s role in helping victims of those mistakes should never be limited by arbitrary legislative actions.

These days it is often impossible to talk about medical malpractice without instigating an endless political debate about whether these lawsuits cause healthcare costs to increase, whether reforms are needed, and, if so, what form they should take. However, the debate too often delves into irrational name-calling and exaggeration, instead of focusing on reaching the best balance between the rights of patients to receive standard care and the doctor’s need to avoid frivolous claims.

Our Chicago medical malpractice lawyers at Levin & Perconti do not ignore the debate; we fully recognize and believe in our role as important advocates for injured patients. Our experience in the field has emphasized that knee-jerk reform efforts (like generic medical malpractice caps on award amounts) bear no logical connection to the basic sense of fairness of responsibility in the patient-doctor relationship. Attempts to impose “caps” on damages is nothing more than a politically organized group (healthcare administrators and medical doctors) attempting to skim away at the rights of a smaller, more diverse, less politically active group (victims of medical errors).

Fortunately for us in Illinois, our Supreme Court recently struck down a state cap on parts of these damages, recognizing the law’s unconstitutional violation of the role of judges and juries in our system.

What is frequently forgotten in these medical malpractice debates is the fact that large medical malpractice awards are only given after the time-tested protocols of our legal system play out: each party in a dispute presents their side of the case in a fair, impartial setting in front of an outside jury of their peers that impartially deliberates and collectively decides the correct outcome.

This legal system was literally written into our nation's founding documents as the premier method to dispense justice in our society. The bedrock of our entire system of government should never be wiped away merely because a particular political advocacy group wants special protection for themselves.

Yet, even after courts reject medical malpractice caps, the healthcare community continues to produce studies that attempt to skew the “problem” of medical malpractice lawsuits. Parts of the medical community are attempting to manufacture an inter-professional war by claiming that trial lawyers are constantly assaulting doctors with lawsuits. Instead, the medical community should recognize that a certain number of particularly negligent doctors are causing a large proportion of the errors, and the system helps to weed out these negligent practitioners so that they harm fewer patients.

On top of that, as American Association of Justice spokesman Ray De Lorenzi pointed out after reviewing the latest AMA study from AMED News, critics seeking to strip away victim rights seem to forget that 98,000 patients die every single year from errors that should have been prevented. Treating medical mistakes cost consumers nearly $20 billion each year. And those numbers have not been decreasing. If reform is needed, it should focus on stopping medical mistakes and saving lives, not limiting the legal rights of the innocent victims of those errors.

On July 24th the Chicago Tribune published a letter from Illinois Trial Lawyers Association President Todd A. Smith that forcefully repudiated a July 9th editorial in the newspaper. The newspaper editorial had criticized an Illinois Supreme Court decision that struck down a law capping damages to medical malpractice victims. Mr. Smith made clear that the insurance reform was the only logical remedy to the insurance problem in the state.

Mr. Smith pointed out that the “crisis” of doctors fleeing the state because of skyrocketing insurance rates supposedly caused by medical malpractice verdicts of does not hold up when examining actual doctor retention stats. According to the American Medical Association, the numbers of doctors in Illinois has remained virtually static since 1945. The 2005 damages cap that was temporarily in place in Illinois had no effect on doctor retention.

In addition, the example of other states makes clear that insurance reform is the true remedy for problems of increased insurance premiums. In 1976 California did not see its medical malpractice premiums decrease in 1976 when an arbitrary damages cap was issued. But the premiums did drop when specific insurance reform was put into place in 1988.

Specifically, what is needed in Illinois is insurance reform that requires these large insurance companies to provide more open information on rate-setting and payout. The effect would be increased competition and ultimately lower premiums for doctors.

Our Chicago medical malpractice attorneys at Levin & Perconti have witnessed the devastation of entire families by negligent and at times abusive conduct at the hands of substandard medical care. Imposing random and often inadequate limits on damage verdicts would only weaken protections for injured patients suffering from doctor error without any noticeable change in the real issue: skyrocketing insurance rates.

Please Click Here to read the entire letter to the editor.

Did you know that preventable medical errors are the sixth leading cause of death in the United States? The Institute of Medicine has discovered that as many as 98,000 people die every year in the United States from medical negligence. Medical error claims more lives than diabetes and influenza. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office has found that 180,000 people are injured every year by these preventable medical errors. It’s obvious that the most direct way to decrease the amount of medical malpractice claims is to focus on reducing the incidence of medical malpractice. By enacting certain safety measures, the medical community could decrease many deaths every year. For example, surgical checklists would greatly reduce the amount of medical deaths. Also, medical personnel should always be required to wash their hands in order to decrease the amount of staff infections. If these little measures are implemented, hospitals could greatly decrease the 98,000 people who wrongfully die every year. If that number decreases, the number of medical malpractice claims would also decrease.

While many Republicans claim that tort reform is the way to decrease medical malpractice cases, it is time to focus on the true problem. Instead we should all be focusing on how we can reduce the number of medical negligent deaths. In fact, while the number of medical negligent deaths has remained steady, the number of medical malpractice lawsuits has decreased. If you have been a victim of medical negligence, consult a Chicago medical malpractice lawyer. To read more about Illinois medical malpractice, please check out the Illinois’ white paper.