Personal Injury Law

Illinois Medical Malpractice Watch: First Hand Look At Tort Reform

By Steven M. Levin and John J. Perconti

The Center for a Just Society recently posted a detailed essay about tort reform written by an experienced attorney who has worked on all sides of the legal system. The author explains that his opinion on the merit (or lacking thereof) of tort reform was rooted in his experiences as both defense and plaintiff?s attorney in medical malpractice lawsuits.

The essay explains how the vast majority of medical malpractice cases that are actually accepted by attorneys are those with merit. Most attorneys take dozens of calls from potential clients in cases in which it is clear that there is a mix-up between negligence and an undesired result. Attorneys are well aware of the difference and explain that difference to disgruntled patients. Even with the patients whose cases are clearly meritorious, claims require thousands of dollars in upfront attorney investment time and costs just to get the case started.

Only then are potential experts consulted who can explain the actions that a reasonably competent medical professional should have taken. By this point after upwards of $15,000 have already been invested by many lawyers, and it is only then that an attorney is truly aware if their case has the potential to win in court. That huge initial investment means that almost no attorneys are willing to take on ?frivolous? lawsuits. It remains prohibitively costly for any reasonable attorney to waste time with those unnecessary cases.

Full post as published by Illinois Medical Malpractice Blog on February 20, 2011 (boomark / email).