|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Tuesday, November 16, 2004The amendment, known informally as the "three strikes for bad doctors" measure, was approved by 70 percent of voters earlier this month. Circuit Judge Janet E. Ferris agreed in part with hospitals that sued to block the amendment from taking effect until some aspects of it can be clarified, most likely by the Legislature or by the courts. Ferris barred the amendment from going into effect while she considers arguments presented by the hospitals and the state, which is charged with enforcing the measure, and by a group called Floridians for Patient Protection, which pushed to get the issue on the ballot. An industry group representing hospitals argued that the amendment's requirements are not clear. It is seeking clarification of questions such as whether its effects are retroactive for doctors who already have had "three strikes," what doctors are included and what agency is responsible for revoking licenses. Ferris said her injunction will expire at the end of the upcoming legislative session in the spring, meaning that if lawmakers don't pass a law putting more specifics into the measure and if there hasn't been a court ruling in the interim, the amendment could then go into effect. It should be interesting to see what effect this amendment will have on the supply of obstetricians, neurosurgeons, and trauma surgeons in the state. Those specialties all have high rates of suits not because they're full of bad doctors but because they handle risky situations - situations in which people die no matter how good the care. And no matter how good the care, when someone dies young and unexpectedly, a lawsuit follows. Will lawyers who justify such lawsuits by saying "well, that's why the doctors have insurance" file fewer lawsuits knowing the consequences will be ruined careers? Of course not. As long as the ruined career isn't theirs. posted by Sydney on 11/16/2004 06:29:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
