Ask doctors what concerns them most, and chances are they’ll say, “medical malpractice.” A recent New England Journal of Medicine study found that 75% of doctors who practice psychiatry, pediatrics or family medicine will be sued during their career. Neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons and obstetricians have it worse, as virtually all of them will be sued before they finish practicing medicine.

The medical malpractice debate often pits physicians — who say the threat of lawsuits pushes them to order expensive, unnecessary tests — against lawyers who believe that lawsuits are needed to hold doctors accountable.

How can physicians avoid the courtroom? If an error was made, many insurers advise physicians not to talk to patients. That’s wrong. Physicians should disclose their mistake, apologize and, when appropriate and through mutual agreement, compensate injured patients.

For more than a decade, the University of Michigan Health System has used such a program, and its incidence of malpractice claims has since dropped 36%.

This approach should be spread nationwide. Actually, in 2005, then-Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama co-sponsored the National MEDiC Act, which among other things would have implemented apology laws throughout the U.S. Although the measure never became law, at least 36 states have passed legislation protecting apologies from being used against doctors in court.

Doctors also must create and maintain open lines of communication with patients, which is critical to preventing lawsuits in the first place. Doctors have to better explain, and patients better understand, that not all adverse outcomes are due to physician errors. Although the Institute of Medicine’s 1999 seminal report, “To Err is Human,” concluded that medical errors caused up to 100,000 patient deaths a year, 90% of those deaths were attributed to systemwide procedural failures at medical institutions.

There’s no panacea for eliminating mistakes, but a starting point is clearly communication. Better doctor-patient exchanges improve medicine, and when patients and their families are kept in the loop, they also are less likely to pursue a lawsuit. And, then, if errors are made, doctors should apologize and work with the patient and, when necessary, their lawyer, to find a compromise.

Transparency is the key to an open, trusting and healthy doctor-patient relationship.

From the American Association for Justice press release.

It could be worse though. In its initial filing Farmers actually said an increase of 52% could be justified, but the company was willing to settle for only 10%. What a racket!

The Texas Supreme Court has a long history of favoring corporate defendants over families and small businesses, according to a decade-long review of the Court’s decision making by Court Watch, a project of the non-profit Texas Watch Foundation.

Court Watch reviewed the 624 cases involving consumers decided by the Court between 2000 and 2010. The report, “Thumbs on the Scale: A Retrospective of the Texas Supreme Court, 2000-2010,” finds that the state’s high court for civil matters “has marched in lock-step to consistently and overwhelmingly reward corporate defendants and the government at the expense of Texas families.”

“The Texas Supreme Court is an activist, results-oriented body that over the last 10 years has developed into a safe haven for corporate defendants at the expense of individuals, families, and small business owners,” said Alex Winslow, director of Court Watch. “The statistics speak for themselves. The court’s pro-defendant ideology can not be disputed.”

The consumer group Texas Watch has been keeping an eye on recent insurance hearings, and has written about it:

So, just what is a junk insurance policy? Sen. Leticia Van de Putte said she’s been hearing from constituents who are fed up with junk policies with what she called “luscious exclusions” and “skyrocketing” deductibles. She asked Insurance Commissioner Eleanor Kitzman about this at a recent committee hearing. Kitzman was unaware of the problem.

Well, we are aware of the problem. So, we sent Sen. Van de Putte a letter outlining the problem (and we sent a copy to Commissioner Kitzman too).

There has always been a troubled relationship between New Jersey motorists and pedestrians. New Jersey is the fifth most dangerous state in the U.S. for pedestrians according to recent statistics. It seems as if there is a constant struggle as to who should be doing what; drivers are unclear when they have to stop for pedestrians and pedestrians just assume they can cross the street wherever and whenever they want. Despite the law being abundantly clear, pedestrians are still getting hit by cars every year—pedestrian deaths account for 25 percent of all traffic-related deaths in the state.

The law states that drivers must yield to pedestrians when they are in a crosswalk and in turn pedestrians need to utilize the crosswalks. Then there is the grey area—someone walks out to cross the street and is not at a crosswalk, technically a car has the right of way in this situation, but in most cases the car will stop anyways. This can create very dangerous situation, if the car has to stop short, another vehicle behind them may hit them, or they may not be able to stop in time and could hit the pedestrian.

It angers many, but in the instance that a car hits a pedestrian who wasn’t in a crosswalk, there is a good chance that driver will not be facing charges from the police. A perfect example of this is the accident that occurred on January 21 in Hazlet, New Jersey. A 17-year-old man was hit by a car and was killed while attempting to cross Route 36, a busy road.

According to a report from the Asbury Park Press, Traffic Safety Lt. Stephen Schmidt explained that the young man crossed just before the intersection and not in a crosswalk.

“He had just crossed the highway at Stone Road near the intersection,” he explained. “The car had the right of way.”

Despite the fact that the boy was killed, the police have not filed charges against the driver. The case is still under investigation. This is a perfect example of the gray area when it comes to pedestrians and motorists sharing the road. If pedestrians are going to ignore crosswalks and motorists are not going to stop when someone crosses outside of one, how will New Jersey ever reduce the rate of these accidents?

New Jersey car accident lawyer Richard Console believes that everyone needs to work together to curb tragic accidents like this.

“Without cooperation from both motorists and pedestrians nothing will change,” Console said. “The laws are there to protect everyone from these types of accidents, but if they aren’t being followed and enforced there will be no improvement.”

The Product:

Adrienne Vittadini Black Leather “Jeff” Boot
Size 8.5
Back zip boot
Low heel
New in the box

The Story:

His name was Jeff. He turned into a heel. Cannot wear the boot knowing that it’s name is Jeff… although every step I take if I did keep them would make me feel like I was stepping on his head…. hmmmm…. maybe I could keep them. No. Someone else should stomp him. Please take them off my hands.