Medical Malpractice Screening Panels Not Working for New Hampshire
A long-established staple of the tort reform movement has been a push for screening panels that evaluate medical malpractice claims before trial–the goals being to dispose of the case without the need for for a trial and its attendant expenses, and to do so for a reasonable settlement amount. According to its proponents, the end result would be a reduction in the high premiums some physicians pay for medical malpractice liability insurance. Such panels are usually comprised of a judge (active or retired) and a lawyer for each party. Some lawmakers in our own state have proposed turning such panels into “health courts,” in which the judges would be able to retain their own, “objective” physician-witnesses to review the merits of the case.
Unfortunatley, such panels have proved to be inefficient in practice, and their results often favor doctors and hospitals over patients. Nancy West, writing for New Hampshire’s Union Leader, describes the problems that have resulted in her state following the implementation of such screening panels, and notes that they have not fared any better in the neighboring state of Maine, whose chief justice, Leigh Saufley, opined in a 2007 opinion that: “The [Maine panel system] has, unfortunately, become a cumbersome process with unpredictable results that costs both plaintiffs and defendants money and time in a way that was not intended by the legislature.”
NEWS TO END THE WEEK
In the ever contentious area of TORT REFORM, an Oklahoma senator aims to halve contingency fees (although his state’s current fee allows up to 50%).
Billion-Dollar Verdicts are a thing of the past, according to Bloomberg News.
And the nation’s preeminent medical journal, The New England Journal of Medicine, has announced a change in its policy regarding disclosure of its authors’ conflicts of interest, according to today’s NY Times.
Equinox Health Club Not Liable for Attack on Loud-Mouthed Spinner
New York County Supreme Court Justice Carol R. Edmead has issued a decision in the case of the spin class goofball who wouldn’t shut up when asked and got his just reward. You may remember reading about this incident back in August of 2007. Plaintiff and another patron were in the same spin class in an Upper East Side Equinox, and could not get along. Plaintiff was purportedly exceedingly vocal about his enjoyment of the exercise, which the patron found disturbing. Ultimately, that patron walked over to plaintiff’s spin bicycle, picked it up (with plaintiff still seated on it) and smashed it through the sheetrock wall.
Plaintiff sued Equinox, claiming it was negligent in failing to stop the altercation before it became violent, and in failing to remove the patron from the class prior to his initiation of the violence, but after he had demonstrated his violent propensities. In response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Court found that Equinox had no notice of such an incident, in that there had been no such behavior exhibited by the same patron or anyone else. Moreover, the Court noted that “a third party’s cursing or verbal tirades are not sufficient to put a premises owner on notice of a possible physical assault.”
Plaintiff additionally claimed that Equinox negliegently failed to call the police after the altercation. The Court found that there was no legal duty to do so, and that even if there had been, defendant’s failure to do so was not proximately related to plaintiff’s injuries. Finally, plaintiff claimed that Eqinox had engaged in negligent hiring, resulting in the failure to stop the incident before it turned violent. The Court was similarly dismissive of this theory, noting that recovery on such a theory requires proof that the employer was on notice of the tortious propensities of the wrongdoing employee, which was not established here.
The motion by Equinox to dismiss was granted in its entirety.