ReviewJournal.com - Opinion - SEEKING JUSTICE: Voters let bad doctors off the hook

PRINT THIS Popular

Mar. 16, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

SEEKING JUSTICE: Voters let bad doctors off the hook

There simply isn't enough money to compensate all health scare victims

To the editor:

In last Sunday's editorial slamming the trial lawyers for their frenzied involvement in the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada hepatitis and HIV scare, you took bits and pieces of my prior quote in order to prove your point. That's OK, but you forgot to tell the rest of the story.

The last time there was a doctor-lawyer media frenzy was between 2002 and 2004, when the medical profession and the insurance industry teamed up to create a medical malpractice insurance crisis. Insurance companies pulled out of Nevada and doctors threatened to leave the state unless limits were placed on a victim's right to recover against a negligent doctor.

A special session of the legislature passed so-called tort reform limiting patient recovery to $350,000 in general damages even in the most tragic circumstances, but the doctors smelled more patient and trial lawyer blood. Dr. Dipak Desai, owner of the endoscopy center, led the charge for more limitations in the form of voter initiatives in 2004, which cut attorneys' contingency fees in half on larger cases.

Most Popular Stories

SHERMAN FREDERICK: Hillary's best hope: racism

J.C. WATTS: Your side, my side and the truth

J.C. WATTS: Social conservatives still a political force

JOHN BRUMMETT: It's the worst of all worlds for the DemocratsCommentary

EDITORIAL: Billing Mrs. Fossett

EDITORIAL: Just 'trust our incumbent senators'

LETTERS: Tipping 'expert' a total cheapskate

ERIN NEFF: They just figured it was a lingerie supplier

LETTERS: Judge gave drunken driver a wrist slap

LETTERS: If you follow orders, no one gets hurt

Of course, the one-sided new laws did not reduce medical malpractice. They did, however, reduce the number of claims. Indeed, a 2004 Rand Corp. report confirms that capping general damages and restricting attorneys' fees stabilizes the insurance market, but not for the right reasons. The report concludes that the double-whammy of caps on recovery and cuts in plaintiff's (but not defendant's) attorneys' fees effectively cuts off access to redress for many medical malpractice victims because most patient lawyers can no longer economically handle hard-fought medical malpractice cases.

After helping to emasculate the rights of medical malpractice victims, Dr. Desai then formed and continues to serve as a director of Nevada Mutual Insurance Co. Inc. which insures many doctors in Nevada, including himself. Conveniently, Nevada Mutual's main office is located right across the street from the endoscopy center, which has been shut down as a danger to the public. No doubt many of the 40,000 patients put at risk by the shoddy practices of Dr. Desai's center voted to "Keep Our Doctors In Nevada" back in 2004. Perhaps the next time some doctors threaten to leave the state, the people should consider letting them go.

The Review-Journal claims that the victims of blood-borne and often fatal viruses from the unsanitary practices of the endoscopy center are seeking to win the "lawsuit lottery" and that a simple demand letter will make these cases easy money for trial lawyers. Nowhere in Sunday's editorial, however, does the Review-Journal reveal that the endoscopy center's liability insurance limits with Nevada Mutual are only $3 million, so let's do the math: $3 million divided by 40,000 patients is $75, which doesn't even cover the cost of lab testing.

My guess is the 40,000 terrorized patient victims are hoping the crafty trial lawyers will figure out a way to obtain more insurance coverage to cover medical expenses for testing for all and treatment for the unlucky, but hopefully few. I doubt that with the magnitude of claims, the cap on general damages will even come into play before the insurance and assets run out. Rest assured that finding additional insurance coverage and proving liability will take more than a simple demand letter, as your editorial suggests.

Meanwhile, the Review-Journal will continue to bash trial lawyers, but if you will excuse me, I have a waiting room full of anxious clients who need solutions to this crisis that have not been found in the newspaper.

Richard Harris

LAS VEGAS

Links powered by inform.com

Leave Your Comment	9 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: you said it undr cvr wrote on March 16, 2008 04:21 PM: you said it unr cvr. you know what's up and why and what for. the powers that be want it all on the sly but they'll wink and look the other way, as usual. it's what they want and you and i both know it! keep up the good work and watch your back. it's hard to tell who's on are side. undr cvr wrote on March 16, 2008 04:13 PM: Keep watch,In The Know , Thanks for bringing focus back toward the Just Us' You know why! Keep watch wrote on March 16, 2008 03:38 PM: Since the phone lines are not safe anymore, keep an eye out for homing pigeons headed to Howard Awands house. Was that Mike Cherry leading the conga line of judges at the Eglet Christmas party? Was Sally Loeher bobbing for apples in Big Bear? Has Jessie Walsh taken Nancy Saitta's place as Cherry's leading lady? marty wrote on March 16, 2008 12:44 PM: mjm, only $24 million dollars for the lawyers in vegas? do you have any idea what a new pair of Bruno Maglis costs these days? any idea what a silk suit with a monogrammed pinpoint shirt costs? any idea of the expense involved of having bad hair plugs removed and new grafts placed after a botched hair transplant operation? $24 million won't even begin to cover the expenses of las vegas personal injury lawyers. slow down a little dick wrote on March 16, 2008 12:16 PM: Dear Mr. Dick Harris: As you know, the cap is on pain and suffering. There's no cap on economic damages. Dr. Desai was the leader of Keep Our Doctors In Nevada? I thought it was that Dr. Manthei guy. $75 for every patient who was tested? Even the vast majority who tested negative? The lawyer would get 40% of that plus costs, so would that be about $55 for the lawyer and $20 for each patient, including the six who got hepatitis? With limited resources, why would the people who didn't get any disease from the clinic need to be compensated? Would that be for the "terror" of having to have blood drawn? There are six people with hepatitis and $3 million to divvy up? I doubt that's true but if it is, how about they just give $500,000 to each of the six patients who got hepatitis and stiff the trial lawyers? What do you think about that Dick? Deceptive argument wrote on March 16, 2008 09:09 AM: There is one aspect of the "cap" that is continually left out of conversation. Attorneys conveniently fail to mention that the $350,000 cap is for "Pain and Suffering" (non-economic damages). It is not for gross negligence, which this most definitely is. Also left out is the fact that attorney fees were limited by the law. By leaving out important facts you are no better than those you criticize. Also, are you of the opinion that all 40,000 should be financially reimbursed? Or are you advocating for those victims who will be fighting a chronic terminal disease. Those who will truly need monetary assistance for medical treatments will be left with little because attorneys will be seeking payment for all. Most importantly, for their own cut of the perverbial pie. MJM wrote on March 16, 2008 07:11 AM: Mr. Harris again speaks and misleads us in believing that "only" $3 million is available. Now as I count there are 14 doctors in Dr. Desai's group as well as 5 nurse anesthetist (who can no longer work because of suspended licenses) and the clinic it self. If mathematic serves me correctly that is $60 million. That would "afford" Mr. Harris and his tribe of avenging angels the ability to put $24 million in the lawyer pockets. This does not include the other medical providers and operations that they have yet to ensnare. So Mr. Harris, just how much do you need? In The Know wrote on March 16, 2008 07:10 AM: Easy does it, Rick. Quit being so self-riteous. You and Bernstein and Eglet will no doubt find a pocket to pick. Eglet's already talking about milking the State. What you, Eglet, and every other plaintiff lawyer who editorializes in this paper always forget to mention is that only general damages are capped in med mal cases. No legislation in Nevada caps economic damages. Why do you always forget to mention that? Whatever the number of genuinely-injured patients turns out to be, you guys will figure out a way to get them their lost earnings and medical bills (less your 40%). The "fear-only" claims will have to suffer with a $350k limit. And why are plaintiff personal injury lawyers so afraid to bill themselves as what they really are? You call yourselves "trial" lawyers (although in your own case that certainly is a misnomer), "consumer" attorneys, and "justice" attorneys. But plaintiff personal injury attorney groups never call themselves what they really are. This is a local and national phenomenon. Is that caused by shame about what you do? Or is it the group's not wanting the public to know that the group's PAC money comes from ambulance-chasers? Your lobbying group (whatever you currently call it), wields plenty of power in Nevada. You and your buddy Eglet should quit whining. For all practical purposes, your group decides which judges are elected. How else can it be explained that incompetents and puppets like Cherry, Earl, Walsh, Saitta, Williams, Vega, Lohrer, Denton and Gibbons sit as judges in this state? These "jurists" need money to run their political campaigns and the personal injury lawyers are always available with cash in hand. Mark M wrote on March 16, 2008 06:51 AM: No one likes an attorney untill they or their family needs one. People assume lawyers are interested in money but the Endoscopy crisis shows many doctors for what they are, callus uncaring greedy practitioners. Neither doctors nor attorneys are inferently greedy but a few bad appeles spoil it for the good ones. Why cant aqnyone see the real winner in the Endoscopy Crisis as well as in Tort Reform are the insurance companies. Its odd that several years post Tort Reform, insurance rates have not gone down for doctors, fewer doctors are practicing in Nevada, medical costs have remained the same for patients, and doctors unfortunately feel the only way they can make money is to cut corners by jeapordizing their patiens safety to save a few pennys per patient. Bad Doctors and insurance companies should be sued and good ones should be rewarded. Medical Limits only help insurance companies, hurt good doctors, hurt the patients, and interfear with the free market. If the public doesnt stand up to insurance ompanies and bad doctors after the Endoscopy Crisis, Nevadans will get what they deserve. . . Overpriced and substandard medical care. At least the insurance companies employees in Illinois and Delaware wont be forced to treat with Nevada Dctors. . .