Restraining doctors isn’t the answer
It is not only with automobile claims that insurance companies throw obstacles in the path of claimants. As highlighted in an op-ed piece in today’s Boston Globe, physicians too have to contend with obstacles in their pursuit of quality healthcae for patients. As the author points out in the article, over the past few years, insurers have heightened pressure on physicians to do what is in their best interest, as opposed to the patient’s.
The author is a primary care physician in private practice in Framingham, Massachusetts. He gave an example of one pressure filled decision:
A watershed moment came for me last year when I diagnosed liver cancer in a 23-year-old man. No one wearing a clinical hat would disagree that this young man’s future hinged on what a PET scan would show — whether the cancer was confined to the liver or had spread — but you wouldn’t know that from the battle I waged with his insurer. It took more than three hours, culminating in an impassioned plea to a senior insurance company executive, to obtain the precious approval number for the scan. A major casualty was a canceled morning of patients.
He left us with the stark reminder that the ownership of healthcare belongs to patients, and decisionmaking belongs to physicians and their patients. If only the insurers felt this way……
You’re in “good” hands?
Have you ever had trouble handling a claim with an insurance company? If so, an article which appeared in the May 1, 2006 Businessweek magazine deserves your attention. Entitled In Tough Hands at Allstate, the article highlights a new book by plaintiff’s lawyer David Berardinelli of Sante Fe, New Mexico. In the book, From Good Hands to Boxing Gloves, Berardinelli tells the story of the key role played by management consultant McKinsey & Co. in reengineering auto insurance claims operations at Allstate Corp. — and it’s a story Allstate doesn’t want told. The book claims that the nation’s second-largest home and auto insurer treats some policyholders with “boxing gloves” during their time of financial and personal duress, rather than the reassuringly familiar “good hands” highlighted in its advertising. Here is an excerpt from the publisher’s web site:
In 1992 Allstate started a pilot project that has changed the way insurance companies in America treat their customers, leading to record profits for the company. Since that time, 50% of the insurance industry have scrambled to incorporated these techniques. The others, are desperate to catch up.
Now, three of the nation’s leading experts on Allstate’s claims practices divulge the change in Allstate, including the creation of CCPR, the implementation of the Minor Impact Soft Tissue (MIST) claims segregation, and the implementation of Colossus for the assessment of settlement values. David Berardinelli is the bad faith lawyer who diligently worked to become the first to obtain the “McKinsey Documents” unprotected, and discusses them here at length. Michael Freeman, co-author of West’s Litigating Minor Impact Soft Tissue Cases, and the nation’s leading expert on injuries in minor impact collisions, discusses Allstate’s creation and implementation of the MIST program. Aaron DeShaw, author of Colossus: What Every Trial Lawyer Needs to Know, and the nation’s leading expert on Colossus, discusses Allstate’s implementation of the program to cut claims settlements. The book provides instruction for every level of trial lawyer from those dealing with Allstate on a case by case basis on personal injury claims, to the most difficult bad faith and class action cases. It considers, why Allstate changed from dealing with policyholders with “good hands” to “boxing Gloves,” how to deal with the change at Allstate and other insurers, and how to win against the insurers implementing a “boxing gloves” mentality when handling of policyholder claims.
To see the article in Businessweek or the publisher’s site, click the links above. Pay close attention to the reader comments at the bottom of the article; it is particularly telling what a former Allstate atorney had to say…….
Study says phones and driving don’t mix
At the University of Utah, psychologist David Strayer, a leading expert on cell-distracted driving, has been studying the effects of cell phone use on driving. His conclusion is that the data proves that phones and driving don’t mix. Strayer and his colleagues have shown that deep involvement in a cell conversation typically impairs drivers more than being legally drunk.
The work is being conducted at the Applied Cognition Laboratory, Department of Psychology, University of Utah. According to the project website:
The long-term objective or the research is to understand the impact of using advanced in-car technologies on driving performance and traffic safety. The research addresses three specific goals limited to the most prominent communication technology, the cellular phone. First, we provide unambiguous scientific evidence demonstrating that cell phone conversations disrupt driving performance. Second, we compare and contrast the increased risk associated with cell phone use relative to other real-world activities. Finally, we provide a theoretical account for why cell phone use disrupts driving performance.
To view more information about the study, click here.
Proposed defect reporting rules opposed
Section 15(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act establishes reporting requirements for manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers of consumer products. Each must notify the Commission immediately if it obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that a product distributed in commerce (1) fails to meet a consumer product safety standard or banning regulation, (2) contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard to consumers, (3) creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or (4) fails to comply with a voluntary standard upon which the Commission has relied under the CPSA.4 Companies that distribute products that violate regulations issued under the other laws that the Commission administers — the Flammable Fabrics Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1193-1204; the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1261-1278; the Poison Prevention Packaging Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1471-1476; and the Refrigerator Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. §1211-1214 — must also report, if the violations may also constitute product defects that could create a substantial risk of injury to the public or may create an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. The Commission has issued an interpretive regulation, 16 C.F.R. Part 1115, that further explains a reporting company’s obligations.
The CPSC has proposed changes to the interpretative regulations surrounding this rule. Our trial lawyer association opposes these changes. ATLA respectfully requests that the CPSC withdraw its proposed revisions to the interpretative rules advising manufacturers, distributors, and retailers how to comply with Section 15(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2064(b). The CPSC has not articulated any compelling need for these changes which will lead to reduced hazard reporting and possibly fewer or delayed recalls of defective products. The current “when in doubt, report” approach better achieves the Commission’s goals of achieving clarity and transparency in the hazard reporting process. The use of additional factors to define a “defect” only adds to the confusion and ambiguity to the process and the addition of Section 1115.8 can even amount to a safe harbor protection for corporate wrongdoers.
For the complete text of the letter to the CPSC click here.
Medical malpractice needs reform indeed
We are inundated with reports of how medical malpractice laws throughout the country need to be reformed to make it tougher to sue doctors. Claims of runaway juries and frivolous lawsuits often are used as a backdrop for tort reform movements. A recent article in the Milford Daily News highlighted many of the fallacies of these arguments. It focuses on the case of a young girl profoundly injured by alleged medical negligence who is unable to sue because of a statute of limitations. Indeed, the article made several great arguments for reforming the law to make it easier to sue.
The paper also included a companion article which included statistics on actual results in legal cases against physicians. The article begins as follows:
Every time a jury awards a multimillion dollar payment to a patient harmed by a doctor, critics decry the supposed proliferation of frivolous lawsuits from patients looking to cash in by suing physicians.
Yet a Daily News analysis finds that patients rarely prevail in malpractice suits against doctors.
Only five plaintiffs who have sued doctors for negligence at Middlesex Superior Court since 1998 have been awarded payments by judges or juries (see box). Eighty-eight plaintiffs had their claims dismissed after a trial during the same time period, a Daily News review of court records found.
When you hear cries about the need to put an end to the so-called “litigation lottery” and runaway juries, you should re-read these articles to see who truly gets the short end of the stick.
Medical malpractice needs reform indeed
We are inundated with reports of how medical malpractice laws throughout the country need to be reformed to make it tougher to sue doctors. Claims of runaway juries and frivolous lawsuits often are used as a backdrop for tort reform movements. An article in today’s Milford Daily News highlighted many of the fallacies of these arguments. It focuses on the case of a young girl profoundly injured by alleged medical negligence who is unable to sue because of a statute of limitations. Indeed, the article made several great arguments for reforming the law to make it easier to sue.
The paper also included a companion article which included statistics on actual results in legal cases against physicians. The article begins as follows:
Every time a jury awards a multimillion dollar payment to a patient harmed by a doctor, critics decry the supposed proliferation of frivolous lawsuits from patients looking to cash in by suing physicians.
Yet a Daily News analysis finds that patients rarely prevail in malpractice suits against doctors.
Only five plaintiffs who have sued doctors for negligence at Middlesex Superior Court since 1998 have been awarded payments by judges or juries (see box). Eighty-eight plaintiffs had their claims dismissed after a trial during the same time period, a Daily News review of court records found.
When you hear cries about the need to put an end to the so-called “litigation lottery” and runaway juries, you should re-read these articles to see who truly gets the short end of the stick.
RR lawyers to attend national convention
From July 15-19, 2006, your RR attorneys will be attending the annual convention of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. This year the convention will take place in Seattle, Washington. ATLA provides over 40 comprehensive, national offerings designed for and by experienced plaintiff trial lawyers. Hailed as invaluable and cutting-edge, these CLE programs enhance legal knowledge and provide fundamental trial techniques and strategies to achieve a just outcome for our clients.
Roy Law 