Indiana medical malpractice insurance companies are trying new tactics to frustrate patients' rights
In 1975, the Indiana legislature passed the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, which severely limited the rights of Indiana Patients. Among other things, the Act required that all claims against health care provider be submitted to a Medical Malpractice Review Panel, who would determine whether or not the defendant committed malpractice. Since 1996, only slightly more than 20% of all Panels formed in the State found malpractice. Once the Panel renders their opinions, the case can then be filed in Court. There are other limitations imposed upon patients in the Act, which will be discussed in other blogs. For now, suffice it to say that the Act is bad for Indiana patients.
Lately, the health care providers' insurance companies and their attorneys have been throwing up additional hurdles to patient's claims. For example, the intent of the legislature in instituting the Medical Review Panel process was to discourage the prosecution of frivilous claims, and promote settlement of those claims that were found by the Medical Review Panel to have merit. However, at least one large physician insurance company has apparently adopted a policy of taking all cases to trial, regardless of whether the Medical Review Panel has unanimously found against the insured doctor. In other words, the defense strategy in each of those cases is to refuse to settle meritorious cases and force the plaintiff to spend large sums of money to try a case to a jury, even though a panel of the defendant's peers has determined that the defendant has committed malpractice. This is apparently a numbers game for the insurance company. They must figure that, given the current political climate, they'll win more than they lose and will save money along the way.
My attitude is this: When I determine that a medical negligence case has merit, I'm willing to go "all the way" for my client, even if that means taking it to trial. In other words, in those cases where it's clear that the defendant's malpractice caused serious injury or death, I'm always willing to trust the collective judgment of the jury, and I have no problem placing my client's fate in their hands. They'll do the right thing many more times than not.
