Cycloptichorn wrote:
Sure; but those cases very rarely end up in the large payouts you see in court. Usually, it's the doctor's incompetence or error which causes malpractice, not avarice.
Cycloptichorn
On what factual basis do you make this assertion?
Everything of course depends on the meanings you attach to "very rarely" and "usually".
The fact is that compared to Europe and other countries the U.S. is an exceedingly litigious place. The costs of lawsuits for damages due to malpractice, product liability, and employee claims are indeed very significant parts of the cost of doing business for doctors, manufacturers, and professional service providers of all types. The risk of a large adverse liability judgement is usually covered by insurance and the premiums for it can be very large -- large enough in many cases to drive a provider out of business or at least cause him to avoid certain sectors or services entirely. In many parts of the country this has severely limited the number of Doctors in certain practice areas, including particularly Obstetrics. It also contributes to raising the price for services and goods paid by all.
Moreover it is simply not true that all such legal actions are well-merited even in cases where large pre-trial settlements or adverse (to the provider) judgements are handed down by juries. For example, a large fraction of employee claims for discrimination are without objective merit, even though they provide a legal basis for findings of fault on something as unknowable as the subjective intent of people who make necessary decisions and choices. The cost of litigation is high and settlement for (say) $50 thousand or so is usually much cheaper than a protracted defense.
