PRE-SUIT INTERVENTION: OHIO PHYSICIANS
Medical Justice members include Ohio physicians who have received a "180 day letter," which notifies the defendant of plaintiff's intent to sue and starts the clock on a six-month window to file. Historically, the majority of these letters matured into bona-fide suits. Of letters received by Medical Justice members, as of 2008-03-31over 90% did NOT materialize into suits.
CASE 1: "DIMINISHING RETURNS"
Defendant:
A physician in Florida was sued for a missed diagnosis. He was not a member of Medical Justice at the time he was sued.
Plaintiff's Expert:
Early in the case, testimony from the plaintiff's expert suggested a strong case of obvious negligence and plaintiff's counsel placed an initial value on the case of $300,000.
Case Outcome:
The physician purchased PE Shield from Medical Justice and plaintiff's counsel was immediately informed of this membership. The plaintiff's expert subsequently "adjusted" his previous testimony, now suggesting the case had "no merit" and demonstrated "no negligence." Plaintiff's counsel agreed to dismiss the case and walk away for $5,000.
A second letter was sent to plaintiff's counsel to remind the parties that without an expert opinion supporting negligence, there was NO CASE. Counsel dismissed the case "with prejudice" and the case was dropped permanently! – This was a major WIN for our Medical Justice plan member.
CASE 2: "BEWARE OF DOG"
Defendant:
The defendant was a general surgeon who was not a plan member at the time suit was filed. He presented to Medical Justice with an open case. This physician was being sued for failure to "fish out" a small gallstone that had dropped during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The allegation was that the stone would serve as a nidus for infection.
Plaintiff's Expert:
Though several years had elapsed, and no infection had developed, the plaintiff's expert stated that infection was highly likely. Following this early testimony, plan member joined Medical Justice, and plaintiff's counsel was notified of his membership.
Outcome:
The expert subsequently changed his story at trial to suggest that now that an additional two years had passed, the risk of infection was quite low. However, his initial testimony, regarding the "high risk of infection" was also delivered many years after the original surgery. According to defense counsel, this change in testimony was instrumental in the case being decided for the defense. Our plan member stated that having Medical Justice membershipwas like "having a big sign that says Beware of Dog".
