Indiana Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

Indiana Supreme Court hears arguments on uninsured case

Thu, 31 May 2012 15:38:54 -0500

On May 10, 2012, the Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could profoundly alter hospitals' billing practices. The case, Abby Allen and Walter Moore v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., arises from hospitals' common practice of billing uninsured patients inflated "charge master" rates for hospital services. Uninsured patients are the only patients who pay the charge master rates. Insured patients and patients covered by Medicare or Medicaid receive the same services at rates steeply discounted from the charge master rates.

The charge master rates are charged pursuant to a contract which patients are required to sign in order to receive services from the hospital. Under the contract, the hospital agrees to provide the necessary services and the patient agrees to "guarantee payment of the account." However, the contract does not specify the price to be paid for the services to be rendered.

Jerry Garau of Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C., argued the case on behalf of the patients in the supreme court. The patients' position is that because the contracts do not specify a price for the services to be provided, Indiana law requires a reasonable price for the services to be implied. Because the hospital charged the uninsured patients an unreasonable price for the services it provided to them, the hospital was in breach of the implied term requiring a reasonable price. The patients argued that the substantially discounted prices charged to insured and Medicare and Medicaid (patients who make up 90% of the hospital's patient population) were compelling evidence of the unreasonableness of the charge master rates charged to the uninsured patients.

The case before the supreme court was initially dismissed by the trial court. However, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed that decision, finding that Indiana law had long required that a reasonable price be implied when a contract failed to specify a price for services to be rendered. The court of appeals also relied heavily on the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in Stanley v. Walker. In that decision, the supreme court noted that the charge master rates bear little or no relation to the value of the services provided by hospitals.

The court of appeals' decision was a significant victory for Indiana's uninsured patients, a victory which could be snatched away by the Indiana Supreme Court. The issue before the court is whether the contracts used by the hospitals require the hospitals to charge reasonable prices, or whether the contracts are licenses for hospitals to gouge their uninsured patients. A decision from the supreme court should be arriving within the next several months.

Indiana Court of Appeals affirms medical malpractice verdict

Fri, 18 May 2012 13:05:50 -0500

The Indiana Court of Appeals recently affirmed a $1.25 million verdict obtained by the Indiana medical malpractice lawyers at Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C.

The decision was handed down in the case of John Morse, M.D. v. Jeffrey Wayne Davis. In April of 2004, Jeff Davis went to Dr. Morse, a gastroenterologist in Terre Haute, Indiana, with complaints of rectal bleeding. Dr. Morse chose not to order a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy to ascertain the cause of Davis's rectal bleeding. A colonoscopy was finally performed more than two years later and revealed Stage IV colon cancer.

At trial, Davis alleged that Dr. Morse's decision not to perform a colonoscopy was negligent, and that the decision allowed Davis's cancer to progress to the point where it was incurable. The jury in Vigo County agreed, handing down a $2.5 million verdict. The verdict was later reduced by the trial court to $1.25 million, the maximum allowed under the terms of Indiana's Medical Malpractice Act.

Dr. Morse appealed the jury's verdict, arguing that the trial court had erroneously excluded evidence which Dr. Morse attempted to introduce at trial. One of Dr. Morse's primary arguments was that members of the medical review panel (which had unanimously found no negligence on the part of Dr. Morse) should have been allowed to testify that they did not believe that Davis had reported a family history of colon cancer to Dr. Morse, despite Davis's sworn testimony that he had done so. The medical review panel members and Dr. Morse's hired expert for trial claimed that Dr. Morse was only required to perform a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy if he was aware of a family history of colon cancer. (At trial, Davis presented a wealth of medical literature which unanimously indicated that a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy was required for patients such as Davis regardless of the presence or absence of a family history of colon cancer.)

The court of appeals rejected Dr. Morse's argument that the testimony he sought to elicit was not an attack on Davis's credibility, finding that, "[t]he 'ultimate point' of the proffered testimony was that Davis was not truthful on the question of whether he had reported a family history of colon cancer and continued rectal bleeding in 2005." The court held that such testimony was prohibited by Rule 704(b) of the Indiana Rules of Evidence.

The court of appeals' opinion highlights a problem frequently encountered in medical malpractice cases in Indiana. Every medical malpractice case in Indiana is required to go before a medical review panel comprised of three Indiana physicians before the case can be pursued in state court. The function of the panel is to provide an expert opinion based upon the evidence before it. However, if there is a conflict in the evidence, the panel is not empowered to resolve the conflict by making credibility determinations. Far too often, medical review panels ignore this limit on their power. Predictably, when the physicians on the medical review panel overstep their bounds by resolving conflicts in the evidence, they almost always resolve them in favor of their fellow physicians.

The decision in Morse v. Davis gives Indiana medical malpractice lawyers a new tool to use in combating panel doctors who try to invade the jury's province by resolving disputes in the evidence.

Win for Uninsured Patients at Indiana Court of Appeals

Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:31:47 -0500

The Indiana medical malpractice lawyers at Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C. have secured a major victory for uninsured patients at the Indiana Court of Appeals. On October 12, 2011, the court handed down its opinion in the case of Abby Allen and Walter Moore v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc. In its opinion, the court held that when Indiana health care providers supply services to patients under a contract that does not specify a price for the services, their charges are required by law to be reasonable.

The case arose from charges billed by Clarian for medical services received by Abby Allen and Walter Moore. Clarian (now known as Indiana University Health) is one of the largest health care providers in Indiana, operating multiple hospitals throughout the state. At the time Moore and Allen received their treatments from Clarian, they signed Clarian's form contract for medical services. Under that contract, Clarian agreed to provide the necessary medical services while Moore and Allen agreed to "pay the account." The contracts specified no price for the services to be provided by Clarian and referenced no source from which pricing information could be obtained.

Clarian ultimately billed its "chargemaster" rates to Moore and Allen for the medical services provided. The chargemaster rates are significantly inflated over what Clarian receives for the same services from patients with private insurance or Medicare coverage. In fact, under Indiana law, if Moore or Allen had been an inmate in an Indiana prison, Clarian could not have received more than 65% of the chargemaster rates for the services rendered. It appears that the only individuals expected to pay Clarian's chargemaster rates are those least likely to be able to afford them -- uninsured patients.

Moore and Allen believed the charges levied by Clarian were unreasonable, and filed suit seeking a declaration of their rights under their contract with Clarian. They also sought to have the suit made into a class action on behalf of all other uninsured patients who have been subjected to Clarian's chargemaster rates.

The trial court dismissed Moore and Allen's claim, finding that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Indiana law. That decision was reversed by the court of appeals. The court of appeals noted that for more than 120 years, Indiana law has "held that a reasonable charge will be implied in a contract that does not otherwise specify a charge." The court also relied heavily upon the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in Stanley v. Walker. In that case, the Indiana Supreme Court repeatedly noted the lack of correlation between hospital charges and the actual value of the services provided for those charges. In fact, the court in Stanley quoted a brief filed in the case by the Insurance Institute of Indiana, Inc. which asserted that "charges billed by health care providers are effectively irrelevant to the value of the services provided."

The court of appeals' decision reinstates Moore and Allen's claims and remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the decision. Clarian has 30 days from the court of appeals' decision to seek a rehearing in the court of appeals or transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Medical review panel process complicated by Indiana Court of Appeals' decision

Sun, 31 Jul 2011 14:12:53 -0500

A recent decision from the Indiana Court of Appeals is causing concern among Indiana medical malpractice lawyers. If the decision stands, it could create significant changes in the way Indiana's medical malpractice attorneys pursue and present their cases.

Before reviewing the decision, a brief overview of how Indiana's Medical Malpractice Act works is necessary. Under the Act, claims of malpractice must first be submitted to a medical review panel consisting of three Indiana physicians selected by the parties. The purpose of the panel process is to obtain an expert opinion on the merits of the claim. In an early challenge to the contitutionality of the malpractice act, the Indiana Supreme Court made clear that the panel process was an informal one. "The statute contemplates that the panel will function in an informal and reasonable manner. It is guided by a trained lawyer who presumptively will not deny to each party a reasonable opportunity to present its evidence and authorities. The scope of the panel's function is limited. It does not conduct a hearing or trial and does not render a decision or judgment. There is, therefore, no reason to mandate that the statute relegate burdens of proof or production and to otherwise specify procedures applicable in hearings and trials. The panel is conducting a rational inquiry into the extent and source of the patient's injuries for the purpose of forming its expert opinion." Johnson v. St. Vincent Hosp., 273 Ind. 374, 390-391 (Ind. 1980)

Once the medical review panel issues an opinion, the plaintiff can file his complaint in state court. The medical review panel's opinion is admissible in the state court action, but it is in no way binding on the trier of fact. As envisioned by the drafters of the malpractice act and most previous judicial opinions, the medical review panel process is simply a procedural hoop a patient must jump through before bringing his claim to court.

The court of appeals' decision in Campbell v. Chambers looks to change the panel process from an informal administrative proceeding into something resembling a full-blown trial. In the Campbell case, the defendant nurse and hospital argued that the patient could not raise a claim of negligence at trial because she had not raised the claim in her submission to the medical review panel. The court of appeals agreed with the defendants' argument, finding that a malpractice plaintiff "cannot present one breach of the standard of care to the panel and, after receiving an opinion, proceed to trial and raise claims of additional, separate breaches of the standard of care that were not presented to the panel and addressed in its opinion."

The court of appeals' opinion creates a number of problems for Indiana medical malpractice lawyers. As discussed, the purpose of the panel is to obtain an expert opinion from the panel members. The Campbell decision now places the burden on lay attorneys and their clients to tell the panel what breaches of the standard of care arise from the facts of the case, rather than rely on the panel to tell them where the breaches are. If a patient fails to articulate a potential breach in his submission to the panel, that breach cannot be raised in the trial court. In order to avoid the risk of waiving a claim of negligence, lawyers for the patients will now be forced to conduct full discovery at the panel process stage. This will cause the cost of pursuing malpractice claims to skyrocket.

The court of appeals' opinion also evinces a misunderstanding of what exactly is contained in an opinion from the medical review panel. The court's decision presumes that the medical review panel actually articulates in its opinion the reasons for the panel's finding. This is simply not the case. By statute, a medical review panel opinion simply states whether the panel finds a breach of the standard of care, and whether the breach was a factor in the patient's damages. The opinion does not address the specifics of the panel's opinion. There is no way to looking at a medical review panel opinion and know whether the panel found a breach based upon all or any or none of the arguments made by the patient in his submission to the panel.

The plaintiff's attorneys in the Campbell case intend to seek review of the decision by the Indiana Supreme Court. Jerry Garau of the Indiana medical malpractice firm Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C., will be submitting a brief in favor of the plaintiff's position on behalf of the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association.

Indiana medical malpractice lawyers handle birth brain injury cases

Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:41:54 -0500

The Indiana medcial malpractice lawyers at Garau Germano Hanley and Pennington, P.C. frequently handle cases involving brain injury sustained at birth as a result of the malpractice of a doctor or other health care provider. The injuries sustained in these cases are often devastating, and the cases present significant challenges that require the expertise of an experienced malpractice attorney.

Injuries at birth often result from the brain not receiving adequate oxygen during the delivery process. This oxygen deprivation can result in a condition known as hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. Hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy at birth is characterized by profound metabolic acidosis, seizures, low Apgar scores persisting for more than five minutes after birth, and the involvement of other organs such as the kidneys, lungs or heart.

Hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy can range from mild to severe. In the most severe cases, the brain damage will ultimately result in the child's death while still an infant. Hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy is also one of the most common causes of cerebral palsy in children. Cerebral palsy is a neurological disorder that permanently affects muscle coordination and body movement.

Brain injuries at birth can occur when the doctor or other healthcare providers fail to heed warning signs on the fetal heart monitor. The fetal heart monitor records the heart rate of both the mother and the baby, and allows the healthcare provider to see how the baby responds to the mother's contractions and other stresses of labor. The monitor can let the doctor know if the baby is experiencing oxygen deprivation, allowing the doctor to take steps to hasten the delivery and prevent permanent damage.

Hypoxic ischemic encephaloipathy may also occur with a delivery that is complicated by shoulder dystocia. Shoulder dystocia occurs when the baby's head delivers, but the shoulders become stuck in the birth canal. At this point, the supply of oxygen to the baby's brain is impeded or cut off. Unless the shoulder dystocia is promptly and correctly resolved, brain damage may result.

Not all brain injuries at birth are the result of malpractice. However, there are many instances where these injuries can and should be prevented if healthcare providers use appropriate medical care.

Failure to report lab results frequent source of Indiana medical malpractice

Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:18:52 -0500

The Indiana medical malpractice lawyers at Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C. frequently handle cases arising from a failure to report abnormal laboratory results. Breakdowns in communications between the lab, the treating physician and the patient lead to untreated conditions and, ultimately, serious injury.

The problem of lack of follow-up on abnormal laboratory results is well recognized in the medical literature. Often, abnormal test results are missed when a patient is discharged from a hospital while laboratory results are still pending. Because the patient has left the hospital when the abnormal test results are returned, the results are not forwarded from the hospital to the patient or the patient's treating physician.

These failures of communication can and should be addressed by hospitals and healthcare providers. Where healthcare providers have taken action, these types of errors have been virtually eliminated. For instance, in 1992 Congress passed the Mammography Quality Standards Act. Among other requirements, the Act required mammography facilities to send written reports detailing the results of mammograms to both the referring physician and the patient within 30 days of a mammogram examination. Studies undertaken since passage of the Act have shown that the requirements have resulted in more timely notification of results and greater patient satisfaction.

Hosptial and healthcare providers should have procedures in place that assure that their patients (and their patients' treating physicians) receive the test results they need to assure patient safety. A patient should not suffer injury simply because she or her treating physician have not been advised of lab abnormalities.

Indiana medical malpractice lawyers see many cases involving misdiagnosed abdominal pain

Thu, 19 May 2011 15:46:33 -0500

The Indiana medical malpractice lawyers at Garau Germano Hanley& Pennington, P.C., frequently handle cases involving the misdiagnosis of patients with abdominal pain. Abdominal pain can be caused by a myraid of conditions; some relatively benign, others life-threatening. When doctors or other health care providers fail to take adequate steps to ascertain the cause of a patient's abdominal pain, the results can be tragic.

Among the more serious conditions which may be signaled by abdominal pain are ischemic bowel, abdominal aortic aneurysm, appendicitis, acute diverticulitis, and bowel obstruction or perforation. All of these conditions can cause serious harm or death if not promptly treated. It is imperative that doctors and other health care providers take the necessary steps to rule out these serious conditions.

A thorough history and physical examination are typically the first steps in evaluating the patient with abdominal pain. The history should reveal the time of onset of the pain, duration, location, intensity, and any associated symptoms such as vomiting or diarrhea. The physical exam should include an assessment of the patient's appearance, position and degree of discomfort; assessment of the patient's vital signs; inspection of the abdomen, including listening for bowel sounds; and palpation of the abdomen to assess for tenderness.

Patients with abdominal pain are frequently x-rayed, particularly in the emergency department. However, studies have shown x-rays to be of limited use in the diagnosis of the cause of abdominal pain. CT scans are the diagnostic test of choice for most serious conditions which present with abdominal pain as a chief complaint.

An incorrect or delayed diagnosis of a patient with abdominal pain can result in a tragic outcome. An experienced medical malpractice lawyer can assist you in evaluating whether an erroneous diagnosis was the result of medical malpractice.

Indiana medical malpractice lawyers pursue heart attack claims

Fri, 06 May 2011 10:54:15 -0500

The Indiana medical malpractice lawyers at Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C. frequently encounter cases where physicians or hospitals have failed to properly treat patients experiencing heart attacks. Medical errors in the diagnosis or treatment of this condition can lead to tragic outcomes.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. Heart attacks are a byproduct of heart disease. A heart attack occurs when blood vessels to the heart become blocked, depriving the heart of oxygen. The symptoms of a heart attack can vary widely. The most common symptom is chest pain, although the pain may also occur in the arms, neck, jaw, or stomach. Shortness of breath, cold sweat, nausea or light-headedness are other common symptoms.

Early treatment of a heart attack is imperative. The longer a heart attack goes untreated, the longer the heart is deprived of oxygen and the more damage is sustained to the muscle. Early treatment options include the administration of oxygen, aspirin, and nitroglycerin. Aspirin is used to thin the blood and help prevent further blockage in the vessels leading to the heart. Nitroglycerin reduces the heart's workload and improves blood flow through the coronary arteries.

Once a heart attack is definitively diagnosed, available treatments include clot-busting drugs, angioplasty, and coronary artery by-pass surgery. Clot-busting drugs, also known as thrombolytics, do what their name implies -- they break up clots blocking blood flow through the coronary arteries. In order to be effective, the drugs need to be given fairly shortly after the heart attack occurs. Angioplasty involves the use of a tiny ballon placed in the blocked artery through a catheter. When the ballon is inflated, the blockage is pushed to the side of the artery wall, creating a wider path for blood to flow to the heart. In coronary artery bypass surgery, a new vein or artery is grafted around the diseased sections of coronary artery in order to increase blood flow to the ehart.

With respect to heart attacks, the most common medical errors involve misdiagnosis and/or delay in treatment. Any error which prevents timely treatment from being provided to the patient is likely to cause increased damage to the heart or death.

The medical malpractice lawyers at Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C. have successfully pursued many cases involving patients who have been seriously injured or killed as a result of improper treatment provided for a heart attack. If you believe that you or a loved one has experienced a serious injury as a result of medical malpractice, contact us for a free consultation.

Indiana medical malpractice lawyers not surprised by study results

Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:04:17 -0500

The Indiana medical malpractice lawyers at Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C. have long known that errors at hospitals often go unreported. A recent study published in the April edition of the journal Health Affairs confirms just how serious the problem is.

According to the study, roughly one out of three patients admitted to a hospital in the United States experiences an "adverse event" during the course of the hospital stay. The study goes on to find that about 90% of all hospital mistakes go unreported.

Following the release of the study, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced a $1 billion program designed to lower the rate of hospital errors. The Department hopes that the program will save up to 60,000 lives over the next three years, and more than $35 billion in health care costs associated with the high error rate.

Hospital mistakes happen far too frequntly in this country. If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of a hospital's error, contact the experienced Indiana medical malpractice lawyers at Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C.

Indiana medical malpractice lawyers win again

Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:24:26 -0500

The Indiana medical malpractice attorneys at Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C. received a $750,000.50 verdict in Fort Wayne, Indiana on March 10, 2011. It was the third verdict won by the firm in the past seven weeks.

The case, Brad & Tiffany Kelly v. Ashok Kadambi, M.D., involved a patient who was treated by an endocrinologist for hyperthyroidism. The patient was told by the endocrinologist that surgery was the only option for treating the disease. In reality, the condition could have been treated with radioactive iodine. Radioactive iodine is a safe and effective treatment for hyperthyroidism and is the treatment of choice in the United States because it avoids the risks and expense of surgery.

In reliance on the endocrinologist's statement that surgery was his only option, the patient underwent the surgery and suffered severe complications. His vocal cords were paralyzed, leaving him with permanent voice and breathing impairments. He brought suit alleging that the endocrinolgist had failed to obtain his informed consent by not providing accurate information regarding the alternatives to surgery.

The case was tried by Barbara Germano and Jerry Garau. The Indiana medical malpractice lawyers at Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C. are available to assist you with any potential malpractice claims.

Indiana medical malpractice lawyers win $2.5 million verdict at trial

Tue, 01 Mar 2011 11:04:51 -0500

The Indiana medical malpractice attorneys at Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C. recently received a $2.5 million verdict in a trial in Terre Haute, Indiana.

The medical malpractice verdict was reached by the jury on February 25, 2011 in the case of Jeffrey Wayne Davis v. John Morse, M.D. The case involved a failure to diagnose colon cancer in a 35-year old patient who reported complaints of rectal bleeding to his gastroenterologist. Rectal bleeding is one of the major warning signs of colon cancer. Because the gastroenterologist chose not to perform a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy, the patient's colon cancer went undiagnosed for more than two years. By the time the disease was finally diagnosed, it had spread to the patient's liver and was incurable.

The case was tried by Jerry Garau and Deborah Pennington of Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C. The verdict will be reduced to $1.25 million pursuant to damage limits imposed by Indiana's Medical Malpractice Act.

Indiana Medical Malpractice Lawyers get $1.2 million verdict

Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:44:46 -0500

The Indiana medical malpractice lawyers at Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C. recently obtained a $1.2 million verdict in a jury trial in the DuBois County Superior Court in Jasper, Indiana.

The medical malpractice verdict was reached by the jury on January 21, 2011 in the case of Meserve v. P. Bryan Lilly, D.O. In July of 2004, Dr. Lilly chose to prescribe a 75 microgram Duragesic patch to a patient he saw in the emergency room, Chad Aders. The Duragesic patch distributes a potent narcotic called fentanyl through the skin and into the patient's bloodstream. The dosage prescribed by Dr. Lilly was far in excess of the manufacturer's recommendations for administration of the drug. Mr. Aders had the prescription filled, applied the patch as he had been instructed, and was found dead in his bed the following day. He was 37 years old and left behind three children, ages 7, 8 and 17.

Jerry Garau represented Mr. Aders' children in the case, which was tried from January 18 to January 21, 2011. After four days of trial, the jury needed only 58 minutes to return a verdict for the full amount requested, $1,206,394.72.

HHS report confirms what Indiana malpractice lawyers know

Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:01:24 -0500

Indiana medical malpractice lawyers are well aware of the alarming rate of substandard care at many hospitals. A recent report from the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services confirms just how widespread the problem is.

The Department of Health and Human Services is the primary government agency charged with protecting the health of all Americans. The report was designed to estimate the incidence of "adverse events" for hospitalized Medicare patients. For purposes of the report, an "adverse event" was defined as harm to a patient as a result of medical care. The report looked at a random sampling of Medicare patients hospitalized in October of 2008 and found that 13.5% of the patients had experienced an adverse event during the course of their stay. This projected to a mind-boggling 134,000 Medicare patients injured during the one month study period. An estimated 1.5% of the patients experienced an adverse event that contributed to their death, which projects to 15,000 patients during the single month. The most disturbing finding of the report: 44% of the adverse events were clearly or likely preventable.

Preventable medical errors remain a serious and challenging problem. If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of medical malpractice, contact an experienced Indiana medical malpractice attorney.

Indiana Medical Malpractice Lawyers Win at Trial

Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:59:02 -0500

The Indiana medical malpractice lawyers at Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C.recently won a $585,000 verdict for a client in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
The case involved a patient who suffered a brachial plexus injury at birth which caused permanent impairment in the use of the patient's right arm. The injury occurred when the baby's shoulder became stuck on the mother's pubic bone after delivery of the head, a complication known as shoulder dystocia.

Jerry Garau and Barbara Germano of Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C. tried the case for the patient. They argued that the defendant doctor should have delivered the baby before the shoulder dystocia occurred based upon signs from electronic fetal monitoring that the baby was in trouble. They also argued that the doctor erred by pulling too hard on the baby's head after the shoulder became stuck.
The Indiana medical malpractice lawyers at Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C. can help you with your medical malpractice or personal injury claim. Contact them today.

Indiana Medical Malpractice Lawyers Know "Defensive Medicine" Is More Myth than Fact

Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:45:44 -0500

Indiana medical malpractice lawyers frequently hear the argument that the fear of malpractice claims causes doctors to practice "defensive medicine" -- ordering tests and procedures to avoid being sued rather than because they are medically indicated. Health care providers and their insurers argue that defensive medicine drives up the cost of health care. However, the argument has little basis in fact.

Recent studies in the respected journal Health Affairs found that the costs of "defensive medicine" have been dramatically overstated by critics of the malpractice system. According to the studies, the practice of defensive medicine has little impact on the total cost of health care.

The findings of the authors of the Health Affairs studies are consistent with previous findings by other studies. In 2008, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that much of what is characterized as "defensive medicine" may be "motivated less by liability concerns than the income it generates for physicians. . . ." The report concluded that "on the basis of existing studies and its own research, CBO believes that savings from reducing defensive medince would be very small."

The ultimate goal of those who argue that "defensive medicine" drives up health care costs is to place limits on the ability of victims of malpractice to recover for their injuries. The Indiana medical malpractice lawyers at Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, P.C. believe that such arguments should be based on fact, rather than myth.