Maryland Injury and Disability Law : Washington DC Metro Injury & Disability Lawyer & Attorney : Greenberg & Bederman : Accidents, Falls, Medical Malpractice : Maryland, DC, Virginia

It is very easy for these groups to portray themselves as victims. The vast majority of people in America have had no reason to set foot in a courtroom in their lives, and have had no practical experience of how the legal system actually works. We live in a society where people have the right to seek recompense for their damages in court, but the burden of proving these damages lies solely on the plaintiff. This can be a very difficult thing to do, especially considering that defendants in civil cases already have so many built in advantages. We don’t have a system where anybody can walk in off the street and instantly win a million dollar verdict for nothing.

In the first place, thirty states have caps in place for non-economic damages. This means that you can only be compensated for your suffering up to a certain point. In Maryland, for instance, the cap for non-economicdamages in a medical malpractice case is $650,000. This means that aside from any compensation for lost wages or wages that you might have made had you been able to continue to work, the most that you can get for your pain and suffering is $650,000. In Virginia the medical malpractice cap is just a little under $2 million, but it’s a “hard cap.” This means that the most you can be compensated in any medical malpractice case is $2 million, which includes both economic and non-economic damages. But it should be mentioned that cases where victims actually reach that level of compensation are the exception and not the rule.

Another thing to consider is that medical malpractice cases themselves are rare. In a six month period in Washington, D.C, from January 1^st to June 30, 2009, only six malpractice cases reached verdicts. One of these cases was actually filed in 2001, so that gives you an idea as to the delaying that the malpractice insurance company lawyers as a matter of routine. Out of these six cases, three of them went in favor of the plaintiffs, but it should be mentioned that the judgment for two of these cases were well below what the plaintiffs thought they deserved. One judgment was for $125,000 where the plaintiff was asking for $300,000, and the other was for $110,000 where the plaintiff was asking for $600,000.

This brings us to another set of advantages that defendants in injury cases have. In many cases, what the plaintiff thinks is reasonable and what the jury thinks is reasonable are two very different things. Even if the verdict goes in favor of the injury victim, there is no guarantee that the jury will award what was asked for. Plus there is the practice of remittitur, in which a judge can lower the amount of a judgment if he or she thinks the amount is “excessive.”

So, between the actual low amount of success, the tendency for awards to be low, the artificial caps that are placed on the amount of money that victims can receive, the tendencies of juries to make low judgments and the ability of judges to slash their verdicts in the event that they don’t, we have a very hard time understanding what else could possibly be done in order to make things “easier” for medical malpractice insurers and their clients. Perhaps making filing for damages against doctors illegal? How about penalizing those who bring suit against a doctor if they aren’t successful? Or how about making the restrictions on what victims of medical malpractice can receive even more strenuous? Maybe a flat rate of a few thousand dollars for any injury, no matter how severe?

These examples of how the deck has become more and more stacked over the years against victims of medical malpractice or medical negligence serve to remind you how important it is to have experienced legal counsel to represent you in your case. John Sellinger, Greenberg and Bederman’s premier medical malpractice attorney, has received the highest possible rating by Martindale Hubble for competence and ethics. He was voted by his peers into 2008, 2009, and 2010 Maryland and DC Superlawyers Magazine.

John Sellinger has successfully managed hundreds of medical malpractice cases in the Washington, D.C. area. A medical malpractice case could not be in better hands, whether it is a surgical error, wrong diagnosis or birth trauma case including cerebral palsy, or erb’s plasy.   If you or a loved one has been injured due to medical malpractice in Maryland, Virginia or Washington, D.C, contact Greenberg & Bederman for a  free medical malpractice legal consultation.

Assemblyman Joe Hardy, who voted against the bill, was quoted as saying:

"We have a challenge of getting enough doctors in Nevada...This will decrease the level of care.”

We have a hard time understanding how holding bad doctors accountable for their actions would somehow make the level of care worse. If anything, we think it would do the exact opposite. But aside from that, Assemblyman Hardy seems to be laboring under the myth that there was a mass exodus of doctors in Nevada due to medical malpractice cases, or that no new doctors wanted to practice in the state. The Nevada Board of Medical Examiners would beg to differ.

The NBME is not a partisan group. They are the people that award licenses to practice medicine in Nevada. In that capacity, they keep pretty good track of exactly how many doctors are practicing within their borders.

According to their 2008 Annual Report:

“…from 1980 through 1992, the ratio of physicians to 100,000 population was relatively static, staying between 140 and 149 physicians per 100,000 population throughout these years. Starting in 1993 through 2005, the ratio moved up to the next range, staying between 153 to 161 physicians per 100,000 population through this period. Beginning in 2006, the ratio has steadily climbed from 168 to 169 and then (in 2008) 172 physicians per 100,000 population.”

Basically what that means is that the level of doctors per 100,000 people has either remained essentially the same or it has climbed every year since 1980. And since 1999, the official license count has done nothing but go up, from 5012 practicing physicians in 1999 to 6896 practicing physicians in 2008. If there was a massive exodus of doctors from Nevada, it certainly wasn’t reflected in these numbers. Also of note in the report is the number of disciplinary actions that the State Medical Board has undertaken since 1999. Of all the doctors practicing in Nevada, only 57 have lost their licenses since 1999. They aren’t exactly draconian out in Nevada.

The legislation that the Nevada Assembly passed and the Senate killed would have allowed for unlimited damages in cases of gross negligence. With only 57 doctors in ten years losing their licenses, it’s hard to imagine that gross negligence occurs enough to make a real dent in the pocketbooks of medical malpractice insurance companies.

This brings us to another aspect of the bill: the argument that the removal of a damages cap would force insurance rates to skyrocket.

At Greenberg and Bederman, we have been practicing law for almost a quarter of a century, and a great deal of that time has been spent dealing with insurance companies. And we can tell you with great certainty that the only thing that can force an insurance rate to skyrocket it is the insurance company itself. The rates don’t spontaneously rise and fall on their own accord.

It’s clear that all of the popular arguments against such damage caps have very little to do with a concern for the state of medicine in Nevada. Doctors weren’t priced out of practicing medicine, and insurance companies didn’t go broke. But what has happened is that a fixed rate has been put on human suffering for no good reason, no matter how significant that suffering is, and there is nothing good about that.

To learn more about medical malpractice issues, please read medical malpractice.  To learn more about our medical malpractice lawyer, John Sellinger, please read about John Selinger, or view his medical malpractice video on Utube.