Med Mal News

FL Bill to Limit Hospital Liability Progresses

A House subcommittee of the Florida legislature approved a medical malpractice reform bill in March that would protect hospitals from malpractice liability stemming from the actions of doctors who practice in them under contract. This provision of the bill is meant to settle a split in the decisions of Florida courts, some of which have held hospitals responsible for the medical malpractice of independent contractors and others of which have not. While doctors and hospitals are obviously in favor of the bill, patients' rights advocates and plaintiff attorneys are not. In addition, some are concerned with the fact that many independent contractors do not carry enough insurance to cover claims made against them; in such cases, the state, through Medicaid, will sometimes be left to care for injured patients, rather than the hospitals that contracted with doctors who caused the injuries. Two more subcommittees must approve the bill before it can reach the floor of the House.

'Benevolent Gesture' Legislation Passed in PA

Pennsylvania's House of Representatives recently approved a bill (HB 495) that will permit doctors to express sympathy for victims of medical malpractice without fear that these words or actions will be used against them in a subsequent medical malpractice suit. The House Majority Leader, Mike Turzai, indicated that this was the first in a series of reforms currently being contemplated by the State. “The House plans to vote on common sense legal reforms aimed at bringing fairness, balance and stability to Pennsylvania's civil justice system, and benevolent gesture is the start,” Turzai said in a statement issued after the House vote. State Rep. Keith Gillespie, the sponsor of the bill, noted that “[t]he legislation takes into account benevolent gestures on the part of caregivers and breaks a level of tension that our physicians and emergency responders face many times in crucial, stressful circumstances.”

Foreign Service of Process Must Also Be Prompt,
Despite Difficulties

While getting a complaint served on a defendant in a foreign country may be a more complicated proposition than the service of process in the United States, that is no excuse for dawdling, according to one federal district court judge. On March 11, U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns affirmed his June 2010 final judgment in favor of Dr. Briain MacNeill in a medical malpractice case brought against him. The lawsuit began in state court but was removed to federal court in November 2009. The doctor, who resides in Ireland, was not served in the suit, according to the plaintiff's brief, because the process of serving a defendant through Ireland's designated authority under the terms of the Hague Service Convention “normally takes 6 to 12 months or longer.” Although the court agreed that the Hague Service Convention establishes a procedure for overseas service, he noted that it took him “roughly two minutes” on the Internet to find two process servers who would have done the job within a month or less if paid an expediting fee.

On Eve of Trial, Hospital Settles with Katrina Victims

On March 23, a settlement was reached between the families of patients who died or were injured at New Orleans' Memorial Medical Center in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the hospital and its parent company. The settlement, the terms of which will remain confidential, came as jurors were being chosen for the class-action lawsuit, which claimed the hospital failed to have a workable plan in place to handle patient care in the face of an emergency.

CA Appeals Court Wants High Court to Abandon
Liability Release Rule

An appellate panel in California recently eviscerated a jury award to the family of a severely brain-damaged infant because the plaintiffs had settled with the doctor up to the limits of his medical malpractice insurance, leaving the hospital defendant with the overwhelming bulk of the liability. Finding that the agreement with the doctor for a payment of $1 million was not a good-faith settlement in light of the fact that the child would need lifetime care, the court in Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital, B204908, cancelled the jury's $96 million verdict against the hospital. The appellate court found itself constrained by California's common-law release rule for joint tortfeasors, which holds that a party who settles with one tortfeasor for a pittance, leaving the other holding the bag for most of the damages, also releases the other joint tortfeasors from liability. In his opinion for the court, Justice Thomas Willhite Jr. wrote that “although the California Supreme Court has criticized the common law release rule as applied to concurrent tortfeasors, the court has not abandoned it” leaving the court's hands tied in this case. He added, however: “[W]e urge the California Supreme Court to grant review, conclusively abandon the release rule, and fashion a new common law rule concerning the effect of a non-good faith settlement on a non-settling tortfeasor's liability.”

FL Bill to Limit Hospital Liability Progresses

A House subcommittee of the Florida legislature approved a medical malpractice reform bill in March that would protect hospitals from malpractice liability stemming from the actions of doctors who practice in them under contract. This provision of the bill is meant to settle a split in the decisions of Florida courts, some of which have held hospitals responsible for the medical malpractice of independent contractors and others of which have not. While doctors and hospitals are obviously in favor of the bill, patients' rights advocates and plaintiff attorneys are not. In addition, some are concerned with the fact that many independent contractors do not carry enough insurance to cover claims made against them; in such cases, the state, through Medicaid, will sometimes be left to care for injured patients, rather than the hospitals that contracted with doctors who caused the injuries. Two more subcommittees must approve the bill before it can reach the floor of the House.

'Benevolent Gesture' Legislation Passed in PA

Pennsylvania's House of Representatives recently approved a bill (HB 495) that will permit doctors to express sympathy for victims of medical malpractice without fear that these words or actions will be used against them in a subsequent medical malpractice suit. The House Majority Leader, Mike Turzai, indicated that this was the first in a series of reforms currently being contemplated by the State. “The House plans to vote on common sense legal reforms aimed at bringing fairness, balance and stability to Pennsylvania's civil justice system, and benevolent gesture is the start,” Turzai said in a statement issued after the House vote. State Rep. Keith Gillespie, the sponsor of the bill, noted that “[t]he legislation takes into account benevolent gestures on the part of caregivers and breaks a level of tension that our physicians and emergency responders face many times in crucial, stressful circumstances.”

Foreign Service of Process Must Also Be Prompt,
Despite Difficulties

While getting a complaint served on a defendant in a foreign country may be a more complicated proposition than the service of process in the United States, that is no excuse for dawdling, according to one federal district court judge. On March 11, U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns affirmed his June 2010 final judgment in favor of Dr. Briain MacNeill in a medical malpractice case brought against him. The lawsuit began in state court but was removed to federal court in November 2009. The doctor, who resides in Ireland, was not served in the suit, according to the plaintiff's brief, because the process of serving a defendant through Ireland's designated authority under the terms of the Hague Service Convention “normally takes 6 to 12 months or longer.” Although the court agreed that the Hague Service Convention establishes a procedure for overseas service, he noted that it took him “roughly two minutes” on the Internet to find two process servers who would have done the job within a month or less if paid an expediting fee.

On Eve of Trial, Hospital Settles with Katrina Victims

On March 23, a settlement was reached between the families of patients who died or were injured at New Orleans' Memorial Medical Center in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the hospital and its parent company. The settlement, the terms of which will remain confidential, came as jurors were being chosen for the class-action lawsuit, which claimed the hospital failed to have a workable plan in place to handle patient care in the face of an emergency.

CA Appeals Court Wants High Court to Abandon
Liability Release Rule

An appellate panel in California recently eviscerated a jury award to the family of a severely brain-damaged infant because the plaintiffs had settled with the doctor up to the limits of his medical malpractice insurance, leaving the hospital defendant with the overwhelming bulk of the liability. Finding that the agreement with the doctor for a payment of $1 million was not a good-faith settlement in light of the fact that the child would need lifetime care, the court in Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital, B204908, cancelled the jury's $96 million verdict against the hospital. The appellate court found itself constrained by California's common-law release rule for joint tortfeasors, which holds that a party who settles with one tortfeasor for a pittance, leaving the other holding the bag for most of the damages, also releases the other joint tortfeasors from liability. In his opinion for the court, Justice Thomas Willhite Jr. wrote that “although the California Supreme Court has criticized the common law release rule as applied to concurrent tortfeasors, the court has not abandoned it” leaving the court's hands tied in this case. He added, however: “[W]e urge the California Supreme Court to grant review, conclusively abandon the release rule, and fashion a new common law rule concerning the effect of a non-good faith settlement on a non-settling tortfeasor's liability.”