Wife had to sign a waiver at the OBGYN today.

[Art 1]

She had to watch a video and sign a waiver stating that neither she or I would sue the practice but would take any issue up with an arbitrator if a law suit came about. She has gone to him for many years and the doctor has preformed two major operations on her. I know him personally and have done work for him over the years. He was said he was sorry but he had to do this per his insurance company.

[Pep04]

What was your wife at the doctor for and why would he be compelled to have her watch a video and sign a waiver? What was the waiver for?

[Omega_Precision]

Maybe the video can be offensive to some?

[Art 1]

Originally Posted by Pep04

What was your wife at the doctor for and why would he be compelled to have her watch a video and sign a waiver? What was the waiver for?

Annual check-up. The video had to do with signing the waiver as to not sue the doctor. They will not see a patient unless they sign.

[rainman_16]

Aren't OB/GYN doctors the most susceptible to malpractice suits? This may have been a way to keep the doc's insurance rates in check. It wouldn't surprise me if we begin to see more of this in the future.

[Pep04]

Originally Posted by Art 1

Annual check-up. The video had to do with signing the waiver as to not sue the doctor. They will not see a patient unless they sign.

I would have her go to a different OB/GYN. My wife didn't sign anything and she just delivered our first daughter back in August.

[Idle Swede]

Originally Posted by Art 1

Annual check-up. The video had to do with signing the waiver as to not sue the doctor. They will not see a patient unless they sign.

Hope it's nothing serious.?

Something to think about next time you do an installation.

[Art 1]

Originally Posted by Pep04

I would have her go to a different OB/GYN. My wife didn't sign anything and she just delivered our first daughter back in August.

There aren't many left around here and he is a very good doctor. My lawyer would have no problem handling a waiver like that.

[Art 1]

Originally Posted by Idle Swede

Hope it's nothing serious.?

Something to think about next time you do an installation.

Normal check up. All is well. She had problems in the past but is now in top condition.

[lavaman]

Sounds more like insurance company trying to protect their profit margin.

Did the waiver say you promise to do ADR first? Or was it an actual attempt at a global waiver of liability?

BTW any court would toss that thing right out.

Actually, you dont have to asnwr me here. I am just curious, as an attorney.

Now, I could see doctors handing lawyers a waiver to sign :-)


****
Serioiusly, glad your wife and baby are healthy.

And CONGRATS!

[keschete]

Originally Posted by rainman_16

Aren't OB/GYN doctors the most susceptible to malpractice suits? This may have been a way to keep the doc's insurance rates in check. It wouldn't surprise me if we begin to see more of this in the future.

That is exactly why! OB/GYN Doctors and NP's/ Nurse Midwives have the highest malpractice insurance of any specialty, except maybe Orthopedics and Neurosurgery.

Having a baby should be a happy time and when things go wrong, even if it isn't the provider's fault, people feel the need to place blame.

I am fortunate that in Louisiana we can contribute to something called the Patient Compensation Fund and it limits the amount of damages patients can seek in a law suit and it requires a panel of doctors to review each case.

I pay both liability insurance for 1 million / 6 million coverage and to be part of the Patient Compensation Fund. This is expensive and in some cases causes providers to pick less litigious clientelle. So many doctors don't pick specialties that are high risk for litigation.

The alternative is making patient's agree not to sue....kind of like a prenuptual agreement. If you want care, this is the way it will continue to trend. Unfortunately!

[Lion]

With many people today ready to sue at the drop of a hat, I can't blame the doctors in protecting themselves!!!

[Yoreese]

We do need TORT reform and liability for fraudulent lawsuits.

[lavaman]

TORT reform is you signing away your rights to recover for -negligence-.

(note my earlier comments that people who want to sue at the drop of the hat need not call me, or for that matter, MOST attorneys I know. We take cases we can win, not ones that are marginal).

I agree that OB/GYNs are Ground Zero for lawsuits, and I think it is largely unwarranted. Things happen, good or bad. That doesnt mean the doc is liable, and I think most all attorneys I know of would agree. Why? Because, we have to front the cost of the lawsuit we bring. Why would we bring a lawsuit if we knew we couldn't win? Think about it: if you had to finance the boat, would you try to set sail in one you knew sprang leaks?

But tort reform is a totally manufactured issue created by insurance companies to cover their bottom line. In state after state, including my home state, tort reform was championed by the AMA and the medical licensing agencies as a way to stop "frivolous" lawsuits. And what has happened?

In every single state, the rates went UP ANYWAY. Why?

Insurance companies passing on their "loses" (note they dont have to disclose their profits in many states) to the consumer and to the doctors in other states. So of course this means national tort reform right? Because the insurance companies promise then the rates will go down, right?

Look, go look at the reports created by Congress (not exactly non-partisan). Lawsuits account for about 1% of the cost of healthcare.

Liablity for frivolous lawsuits? Think about what that would mean. Someone genuinely injures you, but you dont think you can win. But you sue anyway, in an honest good faith belief because you want to have your day in court. YOu lose, and now you have to pay....what? Court costs and attorney fees are sometimes awarded, but they are rare, and are for agregiously unwarranted suits. We already have "liability" for lawsuits. So now, you have to pay the costs, plus compensate the person who injured you, because you exercised your legal right to have your day in court?


And if waivers at an OB/GYN are ok, what about in an E/R? What about in an ICU?

And by the way, that "waiver" wont mean anything. Any court would get it tossed out. You can't agree to forebear from asserting your legal rights.

I am sorry if I offended anyone, but get the facts from people other than insurance companies (or, for that matter, personal injury attorneys) and their lobbyists.

I for one know that medicine, like anything else, involves risk. When I was involved in a serious accident, I didnt sue. Why? Because I was just happy to be alive! When I was shot, I didnt sue the hospital docs for leaving a scar. I was happy to live through it, and they did great work. Yea, I am still sore sometimes, but big deal. I accept that. As a former medic, I have more medical training than, probably 80 percent of the people walking around. I accept that risk.

And no, I am not a personal liability attorney, and yes, I have been opposed to tort reform for many years, long before I became an attorney.

[sambb]

the practice of these waivers is becoming more and more common. if you want to see that particular ob/gyn, i can't understand why one wouldnt sign. if you dont, one can find a new one ob/gyn.... but i know the best ones will move in this direction

did you know that the best doctor and the worst doctor in town get paid the same amount for a procedure? doesnt happen that way for the lawyers... good doctors need to protect themselves.

[lavaman]

samb, with all due respect i dont follow your analogy. could you clarify or send me a msg? (seriosuly, I am just curious what your criticism is and I have heard it in many places).

Thanks

[CoopJr]

Originally Posted by lavaman

TORT reform is you signing away your rights to recover for -negligence-.

(note my earlier comments that people who want to sue at the drop of the hat need not call me, or for that matter, MOST attorneys I know. We take cases we can win, not ones that are marginal).

I agree that OB/GYNs are Ground Zero for lawsuits, and I think it is largely unwarranted. Things happen, good or bad. That doesnt mean the doc is liable, and I think most all attorneys I know of would agree. Why? Because, we have to front the cost of the lawsuit we bring. Why would we bring a lawsuit if we knew we couldn't win? Think about it: if you had to finance the boat, would you try to set sail in one you knew sprang leaks?

But tort reform is a totally manufactured issue created by insurance companies to cover their bottom line. In state after state, including my home state, tort reform was championed by the AMA and the medical licensing agencies as a way to stop "frivolous" lawsuits. And what has happened?

In every single state, the rates went UP ANYWAY. Why?

Insurance companies passing on their "loses" (note they dont have to disclose their profits in many states) to the consumer and to the doctors in other states. So of course this means national tort reform right? Because the insurance companies promise then the rates will go down, right?

Look, go look at the reports created by Congress (not exactly non-partisan). Lawsuits account for about 1% of the cost of healthcare.

Liablity for frivolous lawsuits? Think about what that would mean. Someone genuinely injures you, but you dont think you can win. But you sue anyway, in an honest good faith belief because you want to have your day in court. YOu lose, and now you have to pay....what? Court costs and attorney fees are sometimes awarded, but they are rare, and are for agregiously unwarranted suits. We already have "liability" for lawsuits. So now, you have to pay the costs, plus compensate the person who injured you, because you exercised your legal right to have your day in court?


And if waivers at an OB/GYN are ok, what about in an E/R? What about in an ICU?

And by the way, that "waiver" wont mean anything. Any court would get it tossed out. You can't agree to forebear from asserting your legal rights.

I am sorry if I offended anyone, but get the facts from people other than insurance companies (or, for that matter, personal injury attorneys) and their lobbyists.

I for one know that medicine, like anything else, involves risk. When I was involved in a serious accident, I didnt sue. Why? Because I was just happy to be alive! When I was shot, I didnt sue the hospital docs for leaving a scar. I was happy to live through it, and they did great work. Yea, I am still sore sometimes, but big deal. I accept that. As a former medic, I have more medical training than, probably 80 percent of the people walking around. I accept that risk.

And no, I am not a personal liability attorney, and yes, I have been opposed to tort reform for many years, long before I became an attorney.

Here we go again...You the lawyer claiming tort reform doesn't work.

I guess you choose to forget the costs of defensive medicine. But what do those silly doctors know about the costs of medical care!

Do you have any links as proof to your claim that the rates went up?

[lavaman]

Yes, actually, I would be happy to provide.

And I am sure the doctors know about the cost.

But really, hey, run all the procedures you want because someone MIGHT sue. I guess you won't feel bad when a cop shoots you because you MIGHT do something.

Sources? I ran these very fast, so I apoligize that I havent been able to vouch for all of them personally. NOTE that many cite to NON-partisan publications, an I include the cite.


(yes it is from a lawfirm, but note what source they use:
US Dept of Labor, NAt'l Assoc of Insurance Commissioners)
http://www.passenlaw.com/blog/wp-con...-premiums2.gif

I am not sure I like this one, b/c it mentions TX as being very expensive, post tort reform, but, to be fair, I am not sure that it's a causal relationship:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/10/hea...care-bill.html

I admit the website has a bias, but their citations are lenghty and worth a read, esp regarding the state's largest insurer asking for an increase in the premiums they charge:
http://www.saynotocaps.org/factsandf...stthefacts.htm

About 1/2way down, note the lawmakers in TX noting that, even as rates have decreased, the cost to consumers has gone up!

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/inde...held_up_a.html

I find it most alarming that rates go up nationwide, and, even in the states where some doctors say their rates have gone down, the insurance companies have not passed on the savings to the consumer. Again, in many states insurance companies dont have to disclose their profits! They can simply say "We've had a bad year, allow us to raise the rates, insurance commission"
I could go on, but this isnt the forum. Message me if you like.

Have a nice day. I think I see where all of this is going.

It's been fun.

[Taffi Abernathy]

Originally Posted by lavaman

hey, run all the procedures you want because someone MIGHT sue. I guess you won't feel bad when a cop shoots you because you MIGHT do something.

Please forgive me, Lavaman, but deductively, I don't think think your two premises are comparable. . . The first premise is predicated upon the possibilities that if X is carried out you have the potential for both a positive and negative outcome (but the positive can save a life). Your second premise ensures you can only have a negative outcome (due to implied innocence),

(For the record, you've raised other very valid points.)

[snow_rocks]

Originally Posted by keschete

Having a baby should be a happy time and when things go wrong, even if it isn't the provider's fault, people feel the need to place blame.

Why is it that we think we need to have someone (doctors, mid-wives) to run interference on something that is a natural ability (child birth), and when it goes south, we want lawyers to counsel us?

We have become so arrogant, that we can not accept what will naturally occur, so we synthesize the outcome, and nature has no chance.