The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled that the amounts of settlements made by doctor in other cases are not discoverable in another medical malpractice action against him.

The case is Miller v. Kelly; it is reported at 130 P.3d 982 (Ariz. App. 2006).

The Court held that “the amount paid in settlement of a claim establishes neither negligence nor gross negligence” and that the information is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Court noted that “[p]ermitting disclosure of amounts paid in settlement of a lawsuit contrary to an express provision ensuring the confidentiality of that information likely would discourage parties from settling. And disclosure of that information poses the risk that conclusions will be drawn about the paying party’s culpability and the degree of culpability based on the fact that payment was made and the amount.”

I got this comment from Steven concerning my post about the settlement of the medical malpractice lawsuit concerning John Ritter’s death:

“{T]his illustrates the insanity of the system. If a patient arrives in the ER with a ruptured AAA (abdominal aortic aneurysm), his chance of survival is ~50%. 25% die on the table. It is a very big surgery, and most die before making it to the hospital, making the actual mortality higher. An aortic dissection, can be a difficult diagnosis to make, and the surgery while not as challenging is still very difficult with a significant morbidity and mortality. Anyone who has ever had to work up chest pain knows this is part of the differential, but the odds are very small that this is the dx. Also, patients don’t show up and say I have “aortic dissection.” Doctors have to piece together many factors.
While his death is tragic, there is no guarantee that even if the doctor was superman (or superwoman) with Xray vision able to make a diagnosis instantaneously, John Ritter would have survived.
However, it is a sad story, so I guess if I was on the jury, I would listen to the sleazy trial attorney and decide to “award” the attorney some money for all his suffering. Who knows maybe the family will receive some of it.”

My response:

The FMCSA has a new study out that “[d]rivers of large trucks and other vehicles involved in truck crashes are ten times more likely to be the cause of the crash than other factors, such as weather, road conditions, and vehicle performance ….”

A quick summary from the press release: “The study, conducted with the help of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, investigated a national sample of fatal and injury crashes between April 2001 and December 2003 at 24 sites in 17 states. Each crash involved at least one large truck and resulted in at least one fatality or injury. The total sample of 967 crashes included 1,127 large trucks, 959 non-truck motor vehicles, 251 fatalities, and 1,408 injuries. Action or inaction by the driver of either the truck or other vehicle was the critical reason for 88 percent of the crashes.”

Here is the study.

Teresa Sigmon, attorney for the defendant in a medical malpractice case, allegedly pressured one of the plaintiff’s consulting experts in the case into withdrawing from an agreement to testify for the plaintiff. The plaintiff then sued her, her law firm, and the the medical malpractice insurer for “abuse of process, intentional interference with a business relationship, inducement/procurement of a breach of contract, and coercion of a witness.” (The defendant doctor was also sued originally; that claim was dropped.)

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded all of the claims against the lawyer and her law firm for trial except the abuse of process claim.

The Court found the existence of a business relationship between the consultant and the plaintiff and found that a claim existed under both the interference and inducement theories.

Mr. Wallace was 15 years old when he was charged with murder. He served eight years in prison before an appellate court determined that he was arrested without probably cause and that his confession was tainted by the illegal arrest.

He sued, but the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held (a) the suit was untimely because it had to be filed at the time of the arrest, not after the conviction was voided and (b) any damages would be limited to the period between the arrest and the arraignment, not for the eight years spent in prison. The case is Wallace v. City of Chicago, No. 04-3949; read it here.

The result is not only at odds with the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th Circuits but also with a decision of the 7th Circuit just a couple years earlier in Gauger v. Hendle, 349 F.3d 354 (2003).

ATLA CEO Jon Haber’s Statement in Response to Bush’s Attacks Today on the Civil Justice System

(Washington, DC)-ATLA CEO Jon Haber issued the following statement in response to Bush’s attacks today on the civil justice system:

“It would take the President less than a minute to discover the number of physicians is on the rise, not declining, and that the reason for inflated malpractice insurance premiums is directly attributable to insurance industry greed. Bush carelessly throws around terms like ‘junk lawsuits.’ But the civil justice system he is attacking protects families who lose children as the result of medical negligence and patients who suffer devastating injuries — all of whom deserve accountability. So it appears the ‘plethora of lawsuits’ the President referred to must be buried out there somewhere with the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

Contact Information