05-30-2003

Orlando Sentinel

Jane A. Healy

Jhealy@orlandosentinel.com

RE: Feeney: Answering call for medical reform (Thursday, May 29,2003)

Ms. Healy,

As a former healthy, happy, active individual and now a virtual cripple as a result of gross medical malpractice I have heard and witnessed countless stories of patients having their lives destroyed as a direct result of medical malpractice. I also have witnessed and heard how difficult, if not impossible, it is in the State of Florida to bring forth a suit for medical malpractice. I am both shocked and outraged that Congressman Feeney believes that having one in six out of every Florida doctor, double of the national average, sued for gross medical malpractice is somehow the fault of the patient this physician has damaged for life. Mr. Feeney notes that every neurosurgeon, vascular surgeon, and cardiac surgeon in Palm Beach County, has been sued. It is impossible, I repeat, impossible, in the State of Florida to file a medical malpractice suit unless at least one medical expert concurs that such malpractice occurred. This epidemic of gross medical malpractice in the State of Florida is the driving force behind the outrageous increase in medical malpractice insurance. Jury awards only occur when it has been proven, by the preponderance of the evidence that indeed the physician damaged the patient. Period. It has nothing to do with the so-called "greed" of the attorneys representing the victim. One must keep in mind that the insurance companies also employ the very same attorneys to deny the rightful payment to the patient who has the audacity to sue for his or her injury.

Mr. Feeney notes that providers of such insurance have dropped from 66 in the late 90’s to only 12 at present. Of which he claims, in error, only 4 are willing to take such a risk. One has to wonder of these four insurance companies how many are mutual companies owned by physicians, directed by physicians, and ran by physicians? Of the 50 or so insurance companies that have thrown in the towel, how many did so due to the number of malpractice events that had occurred or how many were forced out by the bargain rates being charged by those who remain in an effort to force them out of the market place. As a result we now see a hand full of companies remaining who have a virtual monopoly on the amount they can charge for such premiums. When one researches the balance sheets of these remaining companies you will find that they are having a tremendous year with increased profits, increased clients, and skyrocketing premiums. They also have REDUCED numbers of settlements with the average cost being about $167,000.

The sixteen doctors at Halifax who walked out on their jobs no doubt did so at the urging of the AMA who has orchestrated numerous such events in the past in the effort to get their propaganda in the news.

Mr. Feeney, like every other politician, says one thing in public and does the exact opposite in chambers. He states that "…If people are injured due to their doctor’s fault, THEY DESERVE COMPENSATION." Yet we find Mr. Feeney in full support of legislation that DENIES just compensation and makes it even harder for someone injured to bring forth a suit for malpractice. Before a cap on non-economic injury goes into effect a jury had to have found the physician GUILTY of gross medical malpractice and that the victim HAD BEEN SEVERELLY DAMAGED BY SUCH ACTIONS. Mr. Feeney goes on to state that "..When you suffer damages because of another’s negligence you should be compensated and made whole." How then can this man possibly justify his support of legislation that denies such compensating?

It is not the trial lawyers who represent these victims it is the victims themselves who are the biggest opponent of this reform legislation. It is not only the trial lawyers who lose "millions upon millions" it is also the victims they represent. Like a child who is throwing a tantrum for not getting his way Mr. Feeney verbally abuses the Judges who sit on the Supreme Court of the State of Florida, referring to them as "…a small, select group of judges", as they had the audacity to throw out the legislators previous attempt at such criminal legislation citing the fact that such action is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I do not believe that there has been any changes in our constitution that would make this newest attempt any more legal. It was not the people of Florida who were thwarted by the Judges, it was the insurance companies and their highly paid lobbyist who were denied the right to deny just compensation to the victims.

If Mr. Feeney truly cares about the assurances that quality medical care will be available in the future he needs to reign in the malpractice. Period. For without a doctor injuring a patient you would have no jury awarding just compensation to the victim. However we find no such action within the legislation he supports. We only find the denial of a jury trial and a denial of such compensation. He believes that $250,000 is just. A figure arrived at almost thirty years ago in California. As most malpractice attorneys charge 40% of such awards this leaves about $150,000 for the victim. Less than the cost of their medical insurance should they live another 20 years. It also leaves about $100,000 for their attorneys who have worked almost six years to achieve this end.

About $16,000 a year. If one assumes a rate of about $250.00 hour we find less than 64 man hours a year spent on the victim’s case. This is time spent on the most demanding and exacting litigation an attorney can participate in. Yet we find no such financial limitations on the amount of money the physician can spend to clear his "good name". The insurance companies have unlimited resources in which to deny just compensation. The victim has a little over 64 man-hours a year to invest in his or her case, according to Mr. Feeney’s plan. This of course is only just.

The cost of jury awards has little or nothing to do with the current crisis. It is a crisis of gross medical malpractice that is driving up the rates. End the malpractice and you will solve this problem. Of course Mr. Feeney has no interest in pursuing this, only protecting the profits of the insurance companies and denial of just compensation to the victim. I believe a jury who has reviewed all of the evidence should be the one to decide what is fair and just, not a politician who is beholding to the special interest groups and lobbyist who got him elected.

Sincerely

Fluoroquinolone Toxicity Research Foundation