More on those lawsuit-free Texas hospitals

Over at TortDeform, UT law prof Charles Silver has an interesting post about the impact of the 2003 cap on medical malpractice lawsuit awards in Texas, where hospitals have seen an extraordinary decline in the number of patients' lawsuits. He writes:

The 2005 Annual Report of the Medical Liability Benefit Plan for the University of Texas System describes the recent history of medical malpractice lawsuits against all U.T. health care institutions. From 2002 to 2005, new lawsuits fell 55%, from 60 to 27. New claims fell 36%, from 163 to 105. Open claims and lawsuits fell 28%, from 354 to 256. All three drops would be even bigger if one used 2003 as the base year.

Proponents of the malpractice cap always claimed that it would only limit "frivolous claims," but it's clear from these numbers that the law is simply limiting most claims. One thing's for sure: the drop in lawsuits didn't come because the hospitals suddenly got so much safer. In fact, you have to wonder if all the doctors who are supposedly flocking to the state (a claim Silver disputes) because of the malpractice law are exactly the sorts of people you wouldn't want operating on you. It's entirely possible that the new Texas law has made the state a magnet for bad doctors who fear getting sued a lot in states with stiffer malpractice laws.

Comments

[skeptical]

Why is it "clear" from the numbers that the law is clamping down on meritorious claims? If you think that 2% of all claims are probably frivolous, then the numbers support your claim, but if you think that 90% of all claims are frivolous, then it's not so clear.

[Arbitrage]

Perhaps, but if you think that 90% of all claims are frivolous, then you're either completely unfamiliar with the empirical research, or you're totally insane.

[Ted]

Depends on your definition of "frivolous." Forty percent are completely groundless, according to the Harvard study.

Is there someone who explicitly said that the caps would only affect frivolous claims, or is this a strawman? Caps are certainly more likely to affect groundless claims without injury, because those are the claims where the only hope of profit is to persuade a jury to award lottery-style non-economic damages.

[Anirban]

the funny thing is that a doctor now has to prove that I am a good doctor and not fearful of getting sued , I am in Texas but please believe me I'm not a slob. Empirical evidence suggests that it is the good doctors , with otherwise impeccable records have been sued and settled because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time and absent a loser pay system He/she will eat up the whole expense , win or lose . Do I expect my doctor to be a martyr , obviously not , so that it enriches a Shyster. And Stephenie are you comfortable with a doctor who screws up 40% of the time (2 out of 5 patients). the sad affairs is that legal industry is less than perfect itself ,but it survives on finding others (im)perfections, and has no chance of dying out (unlike others in a free market ), as it is govt mandated. Should they ensure they are squeaky clean, before lecturing others ?

[Steve]

Its the lawyers. I may have a basis for a malpractice suit, but am uncertain. If I took it to a lawyer, he would say certainly, whether it was a good suit or not.

[Marvin]

This website is the most biased website against doctors. I find it hard to believe it even exists. The inflammatory rhetoric is senseless. Maybe when Stephanie has an ailment, she ought to go to a trial-lawyer friend for advice. I hope no doctor is foolish enough to treat her with such bias against them.