by Jerry Meyers on August 22, 2011
Never have such important rights been lost so quietly. The Pa. legislature abolished Joint and Several liability here by virtually eliminating a victim of negligence being able to recover those damages a jury has determined are owed by wrongdoers. Most striking is that the loss of such rights went without comment in the press and other media.
Under the law which existed prior to the recent legislative mandate, when more than one person or organization combined jointly in their carelessness to devastate the life of an innocent victim, all of the wrongdoers were responsible for the injuries they jointly caused. This made good sense since they would only have been held jointly responsible because it was not possible to separate out the injury which they independently caused.
Now, because of this unfair change in the law, a jury is responsible for deciding the undecidable. After finding that certain persons or organizations are jointly and invisibly responsible they are required to apportion responsibility in percentages which must add up to 100%. Anyone found less than 60% responsible can not be made to pay more than the share of the verdict the jury has apportioned to them.
Bottom line, an innocent victim receiving a fair verdict will only collect if each of the wrongdoers have adequate insurance or assets. The now smirking Defendents who have the resources are no longer required to see to it that the entire verdict is paid.
Only the Orthopedists in Pa. recognized the potential threat to their member clients to join with the trial lawyers and others who opposed this unfair legislation.
Did you even know that this had happened?
by Jerry Meyers on October 19, 2010
Joe Kika writes at readersdigest.com a remarkable set of interviews of physicians and nurses confessing medical mistakes for the record which either could have or did lead to wrongful death. Among those interviewed was Peter Pronovost, a professor at John’s Hopkins University School of Medicine, who has received considerable notoriety as a patient safety advocate.
Pronovost and his work at Hopkins was the subject of one of my prior posts. In Pronovost’s interview he provides us considerable insight as to how his views concerning patient safety evolved. We learn for example, that his father died because of medical errors at age 50. Also, during his training in critical care medicine, he prematurely removed a breathing tube in a patient recovering from esophageal surgery performed earlier the same day. The patient arrested and though successfully resuscitated, remained unconscious for a time. Pronovost admits that his shame at having made a very serious error prevented him from candidly explaining to the patient’s wife the reason for the arrest.
The medical culture of Pronovost’s early years remains today as a true impediment to patient safety. The widespread refusals of physicians and other health care providers to admit their errors allows the errors to be repeated by others.
Ironically, today as I was writing this post, I visited Kevin MD.com and found a very interesting and compelling article authored by Brian Goldman (an emergency physician) addressing the issue of the culture of patient safety. Goldman agrees that medical errors must be confessed in order for change to occur. He appears to reject the view shared by many advocates of tort reform the Dr.’s will not confess except in secret.
Confession is good for the soul and indispensable if a culture of patient safety is to be established.
