Jump to content

Uninsured Rate Continues To Drop Since Obamacare Took Effect.


Recommended Posts

Also, the first time you used that 40% number it was in this quote:  "The last study on the subject I found put frivolous cases that get thrown out or dropped at around 40%."

This implies that we are talking about lawsuits ("cases" versus "claims" -- and no, that isn't semantics).  We aren't.  The study you cited is talking about insurance claims.  So nobody is out there filing a bunch of frivolous lawsuits that get thrown out of court.  What is happening is claims are being filed (this can happen a variety of ways, but most often an attorney signs up a client after investigating the claim and then sends a letter of representation to the insurer and the defendant, which prompts the insurer to open a claim), and then the vast majority of those that are without merit end up getting dropped.  I've seen this in action -- we would sign up the client, send a letter of rep (after we self-reviewed the case), and then we contact a physician to give an opinion and he says "no, you don't have a case."  At that point, we dropped it and inform the insurer we no longer represent the client, and they usually would close their file.

Is there a cost associated with that?  Sure.  Is it significant?  No (it cost us a lot more than it cost the insurer).  

Is it the same as lawsuits being thrown out, which is what you initially implied?  Not even close.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 594
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 minutes ago, kicker said:

You've obviously never worked at an insurance company.  When an insurance company gets a claim, they send out a document by both certified mail and usually email requesting for an affidavit of claim, documentation of the event etc.  Until that affidavit comes back, it isn't an actual claim.  Both the insured and the claimant are notified.  Lots of claims are immediately denied because of time, improper filings, etc.  

 

When the insurance company gets the claim, it's a "filed claim."

What's your point?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a mediator for this case.

Two questions. How does the rate of frivolous med-mal cases compare to the overall rate for all lawsuits? I would guess 40% is probably about right for all lawsuits, not just med-mal. Why not criminalize the act of filing false accusation? Frankly, I think this should apply to ALL false accusations, not just lawsuits, and especially filing false criminal reports.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, kicker said:

The system gets it right 3/4 of the time, which isn't bad.  

Yeah, I'd love to see that logic applied elsewhere.  What if we were convicting innocent people 1/4 of the time?  What if we were putting innocent people on trial 40% of the time?  

 

 

You don't know the specifics of that 1/4 at all.  And the system gets it wrong in the other direction, but you don't talk about that.

In fact, the one thing you cannot tell from the studies you posted is what number of potential medical malpractice claims that are meritorious, but are never filed with an insurer, exist.  And trust me, there are a lot of those.  I used to review them.  We knew we had negligence, but the damages are insufficient to warrant the cost of proceeding.  These aren't soft tissue chiropractor car wreck type injuries either.  Often, they involved extended hospital stays, significant pain and suffering, significant added cost to the patient, etc.  Those are not quantifiable because there simply isn't a record of them in any sort of centralized location like a courthouse or an insurance company's office.  Those cases are found scattered around the country, in the offices of plaintiff attorneys who review and decline them.

@mdrake34, @holymoses -- how many medical malpractice claims do y'all refer out on average?  Of those, how many are actually accepted and pursued by the referral attorney?

The comparison with putting innocent people on trial versus an insurance company processing claims is pretty weak.  Putting innocent people on trial for crimes versus paying out insurance claims where premiums were collected and profit is being made.  Totally the same thing

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, pzummo said:

We need a mediator for this case.

Two questions. How does the rate of frivolous med-mal cases compare to the overall rate for all lawsuits? I would guess 40% is probably about right for all lawsuits, not just med-mal. Why not criminalize the act of filing false accusation? Frankly, I think this should apply to ALL false accusations, not just lawsuits, and especially filing false criminal reports.

We aren't talking about "cases."  We're talking about claims opened by an insurance company.

It probably doesn't have the requisite level of scienter to qualify as a crime.  Truly frivolous lawsuits are already subject to attorneys fees and civil penalties, so that remedy exists, but it isn't going to rise to the level of a crime absent something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, pzummo said:

We need a mediator for this case.

Two questions. How does the rate of frivolous med-mal cases compare to the overall rate for all lawsuits? I would guess 40% is probably about right for all lawsuits, not just med-mal. Why not criminalize the act of filing false accusation? Frankly, I think this should apply to ALL false accusations, not just lawsuits, and especially filing false criminal reports.

What' is a false accusation?  Is it a false accusation if the Jury gets it wrong?

There is a zone between a good faith claim that fails, and a frivolous lawsuit.

If it was that cut and dried, we wouldn't need jurors  . . . much less lawyers

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

You don't know the specifics of that 1/4 at all.  And the system gets it wrong in the other direction, but you don't talk about that.

In fact, the one thing you cannot tell from the studies you posted is what number of potential medical malpractice claims that are meritorious, but are never filed with an insurer, exist.  And trust me, there are a lot of those.  I used to review them.  We knew we had negligence, but the damages are insufficient to warrant the cost of proceeding.  These aren't soft tissue chiropractor car wreck type injuries either.  Often, they involved extended hospital stays, significant pain and suffering, significant added cost to the patient, etc.  Those are not quantifiable because there simply isn't a record of them in any sort of centralized location like a courthouse or an insurance company's office.  Those cases are found scattered around the country, in the offices of plaintiff attorneys who review and decline them.

@mdrake34, @holymoses -- how many medical malpractice claims do y'all refer out on average?  Of those, how many are actually accepted and pursued by the referral attorney?

The comparison with putting innocent people on trial versus an insurance company processing claims is pretty weak.  Putting innocent people on trial for crimes versus paying out insurance claims where premiums were collected and profit is being made.  Totally the same thing

We've fielded hundreds of calls over the years.  Tommy Malone did a great job on a case about 8 years ago where a woman lost both of her arms at Grady.

I now have a case that Chad Adams is handling in which a pharmacy just flat out gave someone the wrong pills.  It should have killed him, but he's hanging in there.

For us, WAY less than 10% of the cases WE refer to a Med Mal attorney turns into an actual case that even gets demanded.  Most get filtered out during medical records review or there is clearly medical negligence, but the damages don't justify the $100,000 or so in expenses these cases require to prosecute.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

You don't know the specifics of that 1/4 at all.  And the system gets it wrong in the other direction, but you don't talk about that.

In fact, the one thing you cannot tell from the studies you posted is what number of potential medical malpractice claims that are meritorious, but are never filed with an insurer, exist.  And trust me, there are a lot of those.  I used to review them.  We knew we had negligence, but the damages are insufficient to warrant the cost of proceeding.  These aren't soft tissue chiropractor car wreck type injuries either.  Often, they involved extended hospital stays, significant pain and suffering, significant added cost to the patient, etc.  Those are not quantifiable because there simply isn't a record of them in any sort of centralized location like a courthouse or an insurance company's office.  Those cases are found scattered around the country, in the offices of plaintiff attorneys who review and decline them.

@mdrake34, @holymoses -- how many medical malpractice claims do y'all refer out on average?  Of those, how many are actually accepted and pursued by the referral attorney?

The comparison with putting innocent people on trial versus an insurance company processing claims is pretty weak.  Putting innocent people on trial for crimes versus paying out insurance claims where premiums were collected and profit is being made.  Totally the same thing

I get several calls a year.  I tell them to call Jason Branch every time, he's the only guy in Columbus that does them on the plaintiff's side.  I have no clue if he's taken a single one, including my cousin's fiance who had a foreign object left in her knee (to be fair, there was a major SOL issue with her case, it was years after her surgery when they contacted me for a referral). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JDaveG said:

To me, the washed up hacks are a bigger problem, not only in medical malpractice, but also in other litigation fields too numerous to mention, including all the ones the three of us practice in.

Judge Jack in Houston wiped the courtroom with a dude signing off on B-Reader reports, and implicated the attorneys who procured it as well.  There was varying testimony regarding whether certain information was on the report when the doctor signed it or not.  The doctor said no, it was added later.  The attorneys said yes, it was already there.

It included things like claiming "mixed dust disease" for people who had never been around silicone or asbestos (they had been around one, but not the other, etc.).

Same thing happens in every state and every field of law with medical overlap.  If you are allowed to get a gun for hire with a doctorate, it will develop defense and plaintiff oriented docs, whose reports you can read before they have been written.  Its sad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JDaveG said:

You don't know the specifics of that 1/4 at all.  And the system gets it wrong in the other direction, but you don't talk about that.

In fact, the one thing you cannot tell from the studies you posted is what number of potential medical malpractice claims that are meritorious, but are never filed with an insurer, exist.  And trust me, there are a lot of those.  I used to review them.  We knew we had negligence, but the damages are insufficient to warrant the cost of proceeding.  These aren't soft tissue chiropractor car wreck type injuries either.  Often, they involved extended hospital stays, significant pain and suffering, significant added cost to the patient, etc.  Those are not quantifiable because there simply isn't a record of them in any sort of centralized location like a courthouse or an insurance company's office.  Those cases are found scattered around the country, in the offices of plaintiff attorneys who review and decline them.

@mdrake34, @holymoses -- how many medical malpractice claims do y'all refer out on average?  Of those, how many are actually accepted and pursued by the referral attorney?

The comparison with putting innocent people on trial versus an insurance company processing claims is pretty weak.  Putting innocent people on trial for crimes versus paying out insurance claims where premiums were collected and profit is being made.  Totally the same thing

Always interesting to see how people justify morally bankrupt behavior.  It's just money, and insurance companies have deep pockets so no harm no foul!

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, kicker said:

Always interesting to see how people justify morally bankrupt behavior.  It's just money, and insurance companies have deep pockets so no harm no foul!

Lecturing me on morals while schilling for insurance companies to not have to pay for doctors' negligence. 

Yeah, I'll live with that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, holymoses said:

What' is a false accusation?  Is it a false accusation if the Jury gets it wrong?

There is a zone between a good faith claim that fails, and a frivolous lawsuit.

If it was that cut and dried, we wouldn't need jurors  . . . much less lawyers

 

In every criminal case, the presumption is (or should be) innocent until proven guilty. I don't see why we would change it to exclude a court case proving an accusation was baseless or frivolous. 

In my mind, it would be a legal mechanism to imprison people like that girl that destroyed Bank's life. Prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt though.

I agree and see a very significant difference. The difference is prosecutors do not press charges when they don't have a solid case, so I don't see where a result in one case would dictate criminal charges for the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JDaveG said:

Lecturing me on morals while schilling for insurance companies to not have to pay for doctors' negligence. 

Yeah, I'll live with that. 

Lols.  Keep trolling.  I've never said liable cases shouldn't be paid, I just believe in only paying when liable... You are perfectly fine with a system that admittedly ******* sucks 25% of the time.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kicker said:

By the way, pretending you don't benefit from med-mal when you admittedly use it as a referral center?  yeah...

Sort of like Clinton doesn't benefit from the Clinton Foundation because she doesn't take her salary from it.  

 

No benefits whatsoever!

I don't see where Dave said he used med mal cases as a referral center. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kicker said:

Lols.  Keep trolling.  I've never said liable cases shouldn't be paid, I just believe in only paying when liable... You are perfectly fine with a system that admittedly ******* sucks 25% of the time.

 

For someone who is supposed to be good with numbers, you're writing in crayon on this matter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kicker said:

I've given you the numbers.  They aren't my numbers.  All you've done is refute them with anecdotal evidence.  

No, I've actually shown you how your restatement of the numbers is wrong.  The system doesn't fail 25% of the time.  It fails on cases that some group of specialists determined were meritless 25% of the time.  It also fails on cases that that same group of specialists found were meritorious 16% of the time (and that is only taking the meritorious cases where no compensation was paid, AND where an insurance claim was filed, so even that number doesn't tell the whole story).

You oversimplify because you don't understand.  Then you ironically accuse me of obfuscating.  Comical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, kicker said:

Then he's a terrible networker.  If you're referring business to others and getting nothing in return, you seriously need to check your business model.  

Were I to refer out a med-mal case that was taken by the attorney and a fee was paid, I would get a referral fee.  As I've shown you in this thread, very, very, very few medical malpractice cases are actually taken up by an attorney and actively worked up.  That's because they cost a lot of money and you have to be very sure you have a good case or you are literally going to bankrupt your firm.

As it is, and as I said, I do not advertise for them, and I have no current cases either in my office or out on referral that anyone is actively working up.  I have literally zero financial stake in medical malpractice litigation.

Don't let that stop you, though.  As I said above, if you persist when you've been shown the truth, you are just a liar.  If that's who you are, keep on keeping on.  I asked you to stop.  I even said please.  Apparently, you can't help yourself.

Your call brother.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@holymoses, you said about 10% of medical malpractice cases you refer out are accepted by the attorney.

When I was doing this type of work, we accepted less than 5%, and we were advertising and seeking referrals for that type of work.

My question is -- if kicker is right and the insurance company will just pay out nuisance settlements to avoid the cost of trial, why don't the attorneys you refer to just take the cases and settle them for less money than they would be worth if they were meritorious claims that resulted in a jury verdict?

Why are they so picky about what med-mal cases they take?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...