I discovered the concealed truth by researching “how many medical malpractice lawsuits are submitted each year and how many are baseless?” The response is “17,000-20,000 and all are valid.” This response contradicts seven facts.
The facts are as follows: First, a complication leads to a medical malpractice lawsuit. Some arise from medical mistakes; others are random errors of nature. Given that an error of nature is not due to negligence, a resultant lawsuit is baseless. Second, a lawsuit is initiated by a claimant who encounters a complication. Some may have hidden agendas. Third, all attorneys see themselves as fervent advocates.
Plaintiff attorneys represent claimants for a contingent fee and cover all legal expenses. As it is prohibitively expensive to represent a claimant with ulterior motives, plaintiff attorneys scrutinize all claims using artificial intelligence. AI does not differentiate merit; it assesses value. Based on the findings, an allegation is chosen for representation as a medical malpractice lawsuit. These are reviewed by a medical expert selected by the plaintiff attorney. When contingency fees for settlements and plaintiff verdicts in medical malpractice cases total 2.5 billion annually, the cost is justified if a lawsuit is baseless. Defense attorneys are equally culpable. Regardless of merit, recognizing that all lawsuits must be defended, they partner with medical malpractice insurance firms. When defense attorneys earn 1.1 billion annually from these contracts, zealous advocacy is of little relevance to the cases they handle.
Fourth, “We prioritize peace of mind over profit” is the slogan for medical malpractice insurance firms. Yet, when a complication is severe enough, the provider would abandon a defendant to settle a thoroughly defensible case. It revolves around their peace of mind and 25 billion in profit. Fifth, the background risk for a physician facing a lawsuit is calculated by dividing the number of lawsuits by the number of doctors. While the lawsuit count is debated, there are 1 million doctors. Assuming 20,000 lawsuits, the background risk is 2 percent per doctor per year, equating to one lawsuit per doctor every 50 years. Sixth, a considerable number of physicians are sued multiple times throughout their careers, which typically last less than 50 years. Seventh, according to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), up to 60,000 settlements and defense verdicts are reported annually. Given the 66.6 percent figure from the AMA, 66.6 percent of all lawsuits go unreported because they are withdrawn, dismissed, or lost in court. 66.6 percent translates to 120,000 lawsuits; 100 percent amounts to 180,000.
While these facts may be complex, they remain relevant. By synthesizing them and allowing for delays between filing a lawsuit and achieving a resolution, it becomes clear that the actual number of lawsuits filed per year must exceed 17,000-20,000, and some must indeed be frivolous.
No single database exists for lawsuits, meritless or otherwise, even though this information is crucial, and the criteria for tracking are easily established. It seems as if there is an industry of medical liability litigation that profits from keeping this information hidden. The economy surrounding this so-called medical liability litigation industry is 627 billion per year, constituting 13 percent of healthcare costs, 2 percent of GDP, and 1,120 percent of the 56 billion assessed as the cost of medical liability. It’s curious that this 56 billion figure has not risen and has remained unchanged since 2010. This figure safeguards the concealed truth.
Assuming that 180,000 lawsuits are filed annually, a doctor’s background risk becomes 18 percent per year, or one lawsuit every 5.5 years. The concealed truth is that more than 17,000-20,000 lawsuits are filed every year, and some are indeed frivolous.
Armed with the concealed truth, I create “CCC+C” (Collate, Compare, Calculate, and Certify) to safeguard myself. CCC+C should not be mistaken for another protocol known as the “four Cs” (Compassion, Communication, Competence, and Charting). CCC+C’s approach is quantitative and objective, whereas the four Cs’ method is qualitative and subjective.
When faced with a lawsuit, I ensure that both the plaintiff and defense attorneys comprehend that CCC+C pertains solely to me and not to any co-defendant mentioned in the lawsuit. It not only differentiates me from them but also differentiates a medical error from a random error of nature with 95 percent confidence. CCC+C undergoes peer review and is published in professional journals, most recently in the Healthcare Leadership and Management Journal. Both attorneys come to understand that, concerning me, this lawsuit is either baseless, stemming from an error of nature, or valid, resulting from a medical error. If it is indeed caused by me, I am willing to settle. If not, “bring it.”