I read with interest Tony Raccuglia’s impassioned plea for Tort Non-Reform in last week’s Open Forum. Mr. Raccuglia is a talented attorney whose own income and well being depends on limitless financial “recovery” for patients harmed by incompetence or simple accidents. Unfortunately he uses the emotional appeal tactics developed over 50 years in law practice rather than presenting the facts in the case he cites as evidence in his unending battle against tort reform.
The case involved damages against a pharmaceutical company, Wyeth, who produced and sold a drug designed to prevent nausea. A physician’s assistant administered the drug, Phenergan, into the patient’s artery instead of her vein. The label for the Phenergan had a warning printed in bold, upper case letters that said, INTRA-ARTERIAL INJECTION CAN RESULT IN GANGRENE OF THE AFFECTED EXTREMITY. Indeed, that is what happened. The patient ended up having her entire right forearm amputated because it developed gangrene just as the warning label placed on the drug label by the drug company said. So, the patient, rightly so, sued the medical clinic, the physician’s assistant, and the supervising physician for malpractice. She settled the claims for $750,000.
Her attorney then filed suit against Wyeth, due to the deeper pockets of the drug company, even though there were a total of 6 different warnings on the label not to inject into an artery. The FDA had approved the labeling as both necessary and sufficient. The FDA has physicians and pharmacists who are charged with weighing the risks and benefits of drugs from the perspective of society as a whole. Mr. Raccuglia argues that a jury of lay people with no special training sitting in the presence of an injured patient are more qualified to dictate what the terms of a warning label should be. Not sitting in the courtroom in front of that jury are the many patients who have been helped by that particular drug.
An emotional appeal by an attorney trained to support any side of an argument - black or white, guilty or innocent – as the true and correct side of any argument is best suited to dictate medical policy rather than the trained physicians and pharmacists charged with doing so. This is essentially the argument made by Mr. Raccuglia. This approach has been very successful for him and other personal injury attorneys. This is the approach that drove many physicians from most of southern Illinois. This is the approach that necessitates endless review of cancer fighting drugs found effective in Europe but not allowed to be used in this country. This is the approach that is partially responsible for the ever escalating costs of medical care. And that, dear reader, is why tort reform is so necessary.
Attorneys have totally screwed up our country's congress. We need to keep them from doing the same to our health care system before it is too late.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thank you for the facts. The decision was obviously wrong. If we had a national health care plan, our tort system would be reformed since trial lawyers would have a lower stake in the game and damages relating to past and future health care expenses would become a thing of the past. Workmens Compensation cases would also be far simpler, since it would be irrelevant for purposes of medical services whether the injury was sustained in the course of employment. Can you imagine? What would these circus lawyers then do for a living? Return to the circus? As a practicing attorney, I abhor our "tort" system which only benefits attorneys to the detriment and expense of the public. Why should an attorney get a third or forty percent of the damages for someone's injuries? Unfortunately, the same people who push "Tort Reform" in its usual format also oppose a national health care plan. They are in my opinion continuing to hold a razor to their own throats. Businesses need to understand that getting the health care mess out of their employment and manufacturing equation would streamline their ability to operate their businesses and stabilize their employment expenses.
ReplyDeleteThis is a tough one. I have opposed a national health care plan because I have been working with the Medicare and Medicaid programs for over 2 decades. What I have seen in Illinois with the way Medicaid has been run leads me to think that it, unfortunately, is a national model of how it would work. The amount paid is often as much as 40% less than it takes to provide the care - not of the amount many providers publish as the pricing - the real cost, and it is paid as much as 6 months to a year after the service is provided. As a note, the published price is set to offset the Medicaid loss, and is not really reflective of the true cost of care. The system has helped to bankrupt the state, and rationing of care based on the type of care needed, not only the financial situation the patient finds themselves in. If that were the model used, flush our system good night.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am also cognizant of the fact that if employers did not have to provide the insurance, then there would be more money left in the company to provide better salaries and supplies. How much is the unknown factor. Surely the IRS would require a similar amount to administer a national program. It is a conundrum I am unable to solve.
Look here for a new post regarding the Veteran's Health Care System, and a somewhat radical restructuring that I propose.