This first piece comes from Medical Economics, and was written by a Nevada physician that had been active in the tort “reform” movement there. He recounts the story of clear negligence — admitted by the pathologist that read the slides — and the jury verdict notwithstanding the evidence in favor of the doctor. The author and tort “reformer,” medical oncologist Arnold Wax, is appalled and now understands the ramifications of what he brought to his state. (h/t Kevin, M.D.) From the article:
It appeared that the case would be resolved quickly, considering that the defendant freely admitted his error. However, this turned out to be far from true.
As I’d expected, the jury found the original pathologist negligent. But, to my surprise, Mary wasn’t awarded any damages… The jurors reasoned that the pathologist had not acted maliciously, and that if he were found liable for a monetary award, he might leave the state. They were likely influenced by political ads that ran during the state’s tort reform ballot campaign, describing physicians who were leaving Nevada because of its malpractice crisis.
That article, which should be read in full, appeared today and just missed the Personal Injury Round-Up by Brooks Schuelke that appeared in my feed reader at the same time. As usual, Brooks brings all the news that’s fit to link.