the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

lr_jkr9_15_08constific.jpg

ad-logo5.jpg

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

Law-Rev-Forum-2.jpg

law-rev-contents2.jpg

Law-Prof-Blog-Census.jpg

Categories

Accounting
Administrative Announcements
Administrative Law
Admiralty
Advertising
Agricultural Law
Anonymity
Antitrust
Architecture
Articles and Books
Bankruptcy
Behavioral Law and Economics
Bioethics
Blogging
Book Reviews
Capital Punishment
Civil Procedure
Civil Rights
Conferences
Constitutional Law
Consumer Protection Law
Contract Law & Beyond
Corporate Finance
Corporate Law
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Culture
Current Events
Cyberlaw
DRM
Economic Analysis of Law
Education
Empirical Analysis of Law
Employment Law
Environmental Law
Estates and Trusts
Evidence Law
Family Law
Feminism and Gender
First Amendment
Food
Google & Search Engines
Health Law
History of Law
Humor
Immigration
Insurance Law
Intellectual Property
International & Comparative Law
Interviews
Jurisprudence
Law and Humanities
Law and Inequality
Law and Psychology
Law Practice
Law Professor Blogger Census
Law Rev (Boston College)
Law Rev (Boston University)
Law Rev (California)
Law Rev (Chicago)
Law Rev (Columbia)
Law Rev (Cornell)
Law Rev (Duke)
Law Rev (Emory)
Law Rev (Fordham)
Law Rev (Georgetown)
Law Rev (GW)
Law Rev (Harvard)
Law Rev (Illinois)
Law Rev (Indiana)
Law Rev (Iowa)
Law Rev (Michigan)
Law Rev (Minnesota)
Law Rev (Northwestern)
Law Rev (Notre Dame)
Law Rev (NYU)
Law Rev (Penn)
Law Rev (S Cal)
Law Rev (Stanford)
Law Rev (Texas)
Law Rev (UCLA)
Law Rev (Vanderbilt)
Law Rev (Virginia)
Law Rev (Wash U)
Law Rev (Wm & Mary)
Law Rev (Yale)
Law Rev Contents
Law Rev Forum
Law School
Law School (Hiring & Laterals)
Law School (Law Reviews)
Law School (Rankings)
Law School (Scholarship)
Law School (Teaching)
Law Student Discussions
Law Talk
Legal Ethics
Legal Theory
Media Law
Movies & Television
Philosophy of Social Science
Politics
Privacy
Privacy (Consumer Privacy)
Privacy (Electronic Surveillance)
Privacy (Gossip & Shaming)
Privacy (ID Theft)
Privacy (Law Enforcement)
Privacy (Medical)
Privacy (National Security)
Property Law
Race
Religion
Reparations
Science Fiction
Second Amendment
Securities
Securities Regulation
Social Network Websites
Sociology of Law
Supreme Court
Tax
Teaching
Technology
Tort Law
Web 2.0
Weird
Wiki
Wills, Trusts, and Estates

Archives

November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

 

« Chart of Law Review Submission Policies | Main | A Second Law Review Submission Guide »

July 26, 2006

Online Blacklisting of Medical Malpractice Plaintiffs

posted by Daniel J. Solove

stethoscope.jpgIn a disturbing development, websites are emerging to create blacklists of individuals who file medical malpractice claims. According to an article at Law.com:

In 2004, a group of Texas physicians launched DoctorsKnowUs.com. The site listed the names of plaintiffs, attorneys and expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases. That site did not make any distinction between cases that ended in plaintiff verdicts and those that ended in defense verdicts or settlements.

According to the New York Times, a North Texas man had trouble finding a physician for his 18-year old son after his name was posted on the site. He had filed a medical malpractice suit after his wife died from a missed brain tumor, and had won an undisclosed settlement.

DoctorsKnowUs.com was shut down four days after the Times article was published.

A new website to blacklist medical malpractice plaintiffs has emerged, called LitiPages.com. According to the Law.com article:

In the latest effort to enable doctors to shun patients who sue, an offshore company has launched an Internet site that lists the names of plaintiffs who have filed medical malpractice cases in Florida and their attorneys.

The site, LitiPages.com, encourages doctors to consider avoiding patients who are listed in the database, and it strongly encourages plaintiffs who have lost their cases at trial to turn around and sue their plaintiffs attorney. . . .

Unlike the Texas site, LitiPages.com plans to list only plaintiffs who filed cases that ended in a defense verdict, a settlement, or a plaintiff verdict on only one count while other counts were dismissed.

The overwhelming majority of med-mal cases that go to trial result in defense verdicts. A large percentage of claims never go to trial, and many of those result in settlements. Some experts say that it's not possible to say that cases are "frivolous" just because they don't result in a plaintiff verdict.

The article also discusses an interesting study about medical malpractice lawsuits:

A study released in May by researchers at the Harvard University School of Public Health concluded that claims that the U.S. medical malpractice system is riddled with frivolous lawsuits are overblown.

The researchers found clear-cut evidence of medical error in two-thirds of malpractice cases that are filed around the country. In those cases that involved a medical error, 73 percent of the plaintiffs received some sort of compensation. Of the one-third that did not involve a medical error, 72 percent of the plaintiffs did not receive compensation.

I find the LitiPages website very troubling. But what about the reverse -- a website listing doctors who have been sued for malpractice or who have lost malpractice cases? I feel somewhat differently about such a website because the vast majority of malpractice claims are for a few bad apples, and having information about them would be helpful to patients to prevent injury. Of course, I'm assuming a professional website that is accurate and helpful, but this may be in doubt because many cases settle, and a settlement can represent an egregious case as much as it can a rather minor case without a lot of merit that the doctor's insurance company just wants to go away. But assuming such a website can be fairly designed, is it consistent to reject the website for malpractice plaintiffs but to approve of a website for malpractice physicians?

I believe a distinction can be made. Physicians are professionals, and they have higher duties and responsibilities than the patients they treat. Indeed, one of the duties of the profession is to police itself, to weed out the bad apples. Sadly, I'm not sure that the medical profession does a good enough job of this (lawyers aren't much better at policing their own profession). In distinction, a blacklist of malpractice plaintiffs discourages them from exercising their legal rights and inhibits the legal system from redressing wrongs by errant physicians. Moreover, even to the extent to which plaintiffs bring frivolous suits, these are often the fault of the lawyers, not the plaintiffs.

Posted by Daniel J. Solove at July 26, 2006 04:44 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1136.

Comments

Interesting! Two thoughts:

(1) How consistent is it with medical ethics for doctors to refuse to treat a pateint because that patient once filed one lawsuit against another doctor under completely unknown circumstances? I actually know zero about med ethics; I'm just musing out loud and would love to hear from someone who knows something about this.

(2) Dependong on how strongly LitPages "strongly encourages plaintiffs who have lost their cases at trial to turn around and sue their plaintiffs attorney," LitPages could be liable for tortious interference. "Strongly encouraging" Client to sue Pltf's Atty B when you know absolutely nothing about what Pltf's Atty did... well, that sounds like a completely unfounded action undertaken just to interfere with Pltf's Atty's business.

Posted by: Scott Moss at July 26, 2006 09:51 PM


In response to Scott's first comment:

A. There is typically no legal obligation for physicians to enter into a treatment relationship with a patient. The physician can refuse to treat for any reason (including because the prospective patient is litigious)so long as it is neither (i) discriminatory nor (ii) violative of EMTALA.

B. In terms of professional ethics, you have to consult the various codes. The AMA only forbids refusals to treat in emergency reasons and on the basis of gender, race, HIV status. However, when a proposal was made in 2004 to make it "not unethical" to refuse to treat plaintiff's attorneys and their families. www.ama-assn.org/meetings/public/annual04/202a04.rtf The draft resolution was met with strong opposition and withdrawn, suggesting that it is unethical to refuse to treat for such a reason. The same reasoning would seem to apply to plaintiffs themselves.

Posted by: Thaddeus Pope at July 27, 2006 12:03 PM


why is this "disturbing" and "troubling"...the NY Times publishing state secrets - that's disturbing (to put it mildly) but this? the collection of names of people who utilize our court systems to go after doctors is probably of relevant interest to the medical profession - I would think you would be all in favor of Doctors having all the information they can gather to best assess the proper utilization of their time; esp. ob-gyns...and if this leads to less med-mal suits and less costs to doctors, we all benefit..well, all except the med-mal practioners

Posted by: Maryland Conservatarian at July 27, 2006 03:30 PM


Massachusetts provides profiles of its licensed physicians on a website. In addition to basic information about education and training, the profiles include information on malpractice payments (both settlements and judgments). They list the # of payments the physician has made, the payment "category" (e.g., "Above Average"). For physicians who have made malpractice payments, the profiles also list the number of physicians in the physician's specialty and the percentage of those physicians who have made malpractice payments. For a description of profile content, see:
http://profiles.massmedboard.org/Profiles/MA-Physician-Profile-FAQ.asp.

Posted by: Anon at July 27, 2006 03:56 PM


How easy is it for doctors to obtain liability waivers from a patient seeking a risky operation? If it is fairly easy, and the courts are willing to enforce them, it seems like doctors would be more likely to require these waivers instead of turning patients away altogether; after all, they have every incentive to increase the number of patients they treat.

On the other hand, if these waivers are routinely ignored in civil litigation, this new database would cause more doctors to reject previous plaintiffs. In the latter case, it seems the better solution would be to enforce liability waivers and make them easier to obtain, rather than criticize the website for providing the doctors with a legal and reasonable service.

Posted by: Ray Seilie at July 28, 2006 10:53 AM


You can take this for what it is worth since I am a physician, but the article indicates 66% "medical error" and 73% compensation in those cases while a quarter of the plaintiffs received compensation when no error was present. If you assume that in order to find for the plaintiff that the tenets of negligence should be present (and in the case of OB/GYNs there is often no science to prove such, but "bad babies" need to be compensated and the deepest pockets are the doctors) if there no provable medical error you still have a 25% chance of having a malpractice suit on your record by not meeting those criteria if you are sued.

Being sued is probably the worst experience psychologically that any physician can have. I know many physicians who have altered their practices or stopped practicing due to suits and I have never met a physician who has been sued that was not traumatized in some way, including that large percentage who were exonerated.

Physicians know this and will try to avoid the experience. My wife left her practice because of such fears (OB/GYN doctors are sued an average of three times in their careers) even though there were no suits or hints of one.

So it is not surprising that these lists would occur and that the AMA (an organization I am not a member of) would consider changing the ethics code to exclude lawyers who sue them. This is not an apology for such sites, it is not that hard to find this information in many states, but lawsuits, even the ones that are settled or won, basically ruin part of your career (just try to get on insurance panels or hospital staffs with a recent suit) and the fear of lawsuits has modified many physician's practices to the point that some patients cannot get care in some states.

Posted by: mikeyes at July 31, 2006 03:25 PM


Blacklisting happens all the time. It doesn't have to be on a computer. It can happen through medical records, medical gossip, and it's quite common.

Posted by: Cocoa at August 22, 2006 03:03 AM


Ooops. here's my website about blacklisting:

http://www.patientblacklisting.org

Posted by: Cocoa at August 22, 2006 03:05 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Michael O'Shea

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Robert Ahdieh
Miriam Cherry
Mark Edwards
Susan Kuo
Jonathan Lipson
Scott Moss
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Geoffrey Rapp
Susan Scafidi
Howard Wasserman






ad-logo3.jpg

blawg100_winner2.jpg

Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Craig Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Dan Kahan
Sam Kamin
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Joseph Liu
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo PeƱalver
Neil RIchards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Paul Secunda
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Robert Tsai
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
Beltway Blogroll
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
Convictions
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
JD2B.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian
Mirror of Justice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
Political Theory Daily Review
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member