Illinois And Missouri Injury Lawyer Blog

Our practice has been fairly evenly divided between Illinois and Missouri since its inception. We have taken Wrongful Death cases to trial in both jurisdictions for many years. Because of our proximity to the Mississippi River, we became acutely aware some time ago that Illinois attorneys may sometimes miss key points when bringing a suit for wrongful death in Missouri, and some of those mistakes can be fatal to a cause of action. The same is true for Missouri attorneys trying their hand in representing Illinois clients for their losses. This is one of a series of very short articles which attempt to summarize key points of practice that are often lost in translation.

It may be noted at the outset that "Wrongful Death" is a statutory cause of action. That is, under the old common law one in general could not obtain damages for the loss of someone else's life, even when negligently caused. There are now in all States specific statutes that allow for such claims, and as a result there are extreme differences in the process, parties, and allowable damages depending on in which State one suffers this terrible loss.

PROPER PARTIES ILLINOIS In Illinois, the action is governed by two separate statutes. The pure "wrongful death" claim is governed by the Illinois Wrongful Death Act set out as 740 ILCS 180/1 et seq. The statute of limitations on such claims is 2 years from the date of death. (Details and exceptions in another article.) Here, the important point to note is WHO may properly bring such a claim. In Illinois, there are only two possible named plaintiffs: Either the Administrator of the Estate of the deceased or a party named as the "Special Administrator." Specifically, the statute provides that: Sec. 2. Every such action shall be brought by and in the names of the personal representatives of such deceased person, and, except as otherwise hereinafter provided, the amount recovered in every such action shall be for the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse and next of kin of such deceased person. 180/2.

While the personal administrator of the estate brings the action, controls the action, and has authority to settle the action, they do so with a fiduciary duty to the other beneficiaries of such an action- which are the "next of kin" as defined in the Illinois Probate Act.

To proceed with a Wrongful Death Act claim in Illinois, then, an estate will commonly be opened and the plaintiff appointed as administrator. Where there are no, or very limited, assets of the deceased other than the potential Wrongful Death claim, a small estate or the equivalent can usually be easily opened with limited expense in the County in which probate would have occurred. Where there is no estate and nothing needs to be probated, however, Illinois law provides a much easier alternative: The Special Administrator. Again, the law provides:

Continue reading "Wrongful Death Acts; Be Aware of Differences in Illinois and Missouri - Parties to the Action" »

When an electric current passes through a human body, it can do so without leaving an obvious trace of harm, or it can cause great devastation. Unfortunately, most doctors are simply not trained to deal with anything more than the most obvious injuries and may overlook other long term problems.

Electric shock or electrocution injuries occur in many different ways. We frequently see these as a result of improper safety precautions on construction jobs or in maintenance work where a worker comes in contact with a live electrical conductor by accident. Often, someone fails to "lock-out" a line that is being worked on, or someone overrides a lock-out indication. Electric shock injuries occur when household appliances or switches are defective and send electric potential to a place it ought not to be. And electrocutions are common where people use aluminum ladders or poles anywhere near electrical transmission lines.

Severe burns and death are the two most open and obvious injuries when an electric current runs through a human body. Burns are most often found at the site where the electric current leaves the body and arcs through space to the ground or a metal surface, although they can also be found at the place where the entry occurs. These burns are often deep and can cause extensive scarring and defects.

However, if the path of electric current runs through the body, it can cause serious and permanent problems with the heart or other organs. The heart is regulated by the body's own electrical system, although with voltages and currents far below anything that causes a shock from the outside. Disruption of that system can kill, or cause long-term complications. Except for some specialized physicians or clinics, doctors just are not trained to recognize much beyond the burns or a stopped heart. For that reason, evaluation by qualified medical personnel and investigation by experienced examiners should always be used in evaluating an electrical injury.

John was a strong self-reliant family man working maintenance at a mill. He had just been approved for an apprenticeship training to move up to a job as an electrician at the plant. John appeared at his doctor's office for a yearly checkup and received a "flu shot" as recommended by the physician, his employer, and the CDC. Unfortunately, about 24 hours later he began to feel weakness in his legs and arms. Although he sought help, his condition deteriorated rapidly until he was paralyzed in three limbs and unable to lift himself from bed.

His physicians diagnosed Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a poorly understood disease that has been tied to reactions to certain vaccines as well as other causes. While John and his wife aggressively pursued treatment and therapy, our office filed a claim with the Vaccine Injury court in the Federal Court of Claims. This special court was established to take the pressure off of vaccine manufacturers by covering claims that are related to known reactions to important vaccinations. The funds to pay claims are defended by attorneys working for the federal government. For a plaintiff's attorney to file and appear in that court, they must be registered with the Federal Court of Claims.

John made progress over a year of recovery. He worked every day with the hospital therapists, and when he was sent home he continued his daily exercises. He returned to work, but could never qualify again for the electrician program. We presented a number of physicians, including two neurologists as well as his treating physicians, to opine that his Guillain-Barre was caused by the vaccine, and to outline his likely recovery. Because he was able to return to work fairly quickly in a limited duty position, and he progressed to the level he was at prior to the injury, his obvious wage loss was not a great deal. Our office hired an economist to put forth the opportunity John missed, along with the loss in his relative raises. In the end, the government was forced to accept our position on almost all points. The case settled quickly for $300,000.00, all of which went directly to John without a deduction for attorney fees or costs.

Our office is glad to consult with attorneys on vaccine injuries, whether within the government program or outside of it.

Did you know the number of doctors in Illinois has steadily increased over the past decade?

The number of physicians licensed and engaged in "patient care" in Illinois has never declined in the past 45 years, despite widespread advertising by the insurance lobby and outright falsehoods being passed around.

In 2005, when the cap went into effect, the myth of doctors fleeing abruptly stopped. Rather odd considering there was no immediate drop in the high malpractice insurance rates - which was the reason why doctors were supposedly leaving the state.
Illinois also has more doctors per capita than three other states - California, Ohio and Texas - frequently cited by tort reformers because of their damage caps. California and Texas have some of the most onerous and oppressive restrictions preventing anyone who is injured by a doctor, hospital or nursing facility from holding them responsible to the value of the damage. The myth was that doctors were fleeing Illinois, with slightly fairer rules.

Even more strangely, the insurance industry and politicians claimed that doctors were fleeing southern Illinois because of lawsuits... but could never explain 1) why doctors were fleeing TO the Chicago area where there are far more suits and larger verdicts, and 2) how they could never show that the number of doctors actually did decline.

There were 34,376 doctors serving patients in Illinois in 1998 and there were 40,255 doctors here in 2008, without a single year of decrease.

For a chart and more information regarding insurance reform, see "The Whole Truth About Medical Malpractice and Insurance" pages 25-30 by clicking here.

Anyone who deals with a train accident at some point will examine the speed of the train. Unfortunately, even when the train locomotive is "speeding" faster than the railroad's own regulations, and even where the speed of the train is a cause of the accident, the attorney for an injured party quickly finds that such violations are "preempted" by the federal law and regulations that determine the allowable maximum speeds on track. There are dozens of cases upholding the federal law's supremacy, and thus automatically excusing railroads or engineers for operating their trains as excessive speeds. This short note is to alert counsel to one way that this preemption can be used to the plaintiff's advantage, and to encourage closer examination of the track layout at the scene of any serious accident.

The Federal Railroad Administration is granted oversight of railroad operations by law, and is mandated to establish Regulations to that effect. Rail speeds are, in part, governed by 49 U.S.C. Section 213.9 which establishes "Classes" of track. For example, the chart in 213.9(a) establishes that passenger trains can run up to 80 miles per hour on "Class 4" track, while freight trains can run up to 60 mph on the same track. Since this federal regulation expressly preempts state law (213.2), -absent a regulation based on a local hazard- the courts have consistently thrown out claims that a train should have run at lesser speeds under the circumstances. Unfortunately, and without real foundation, the courts have also solidly and firmly held that 49 USC 213.9 preempts even the railroads own set speed limits, referred to as the Time Tables. So, for example, if a railroad publishes a Time Table restricting passenger train speed to 40 mph on a section of track that is otherwise Class 4, and the engineer runs the train at 70mph causing an accident, the "speeding" claim is barred by the preemptive federal speed limit of 80 mph. See the much cited CSX v Easterwood case.

HOWEVER, there is an exception to this that is almost universally missed. In cases where there is a curve in the tracks at the accident site or on the train's approach to the accident, 213.9 specifically states that a separate section, 49 CFR 213.57, applies- and federal law then uses that section to designate the federal speed limit- not the Class of track! The formula in 213.57 is complex and uses a term or two that are not familiar outside the railroad industry, but it can be quickly used to calculate the absolute speed allowable on a curved section of track. A discussion of the formula is more complicated that I wish to go into here, however a clue - but only a clue - as to the speed values is in the Time Table published by the railroad. The Time Table speeds are supposed to be, in part, based upon calculations using this formula. Therefore, often the time table speeds will reflect a limit just short of the federal speed limit, and a violation of time table speeds in those specific places can therefore be a violation of federal law.

When that occurs, the "preemption" argument of the railroad is out the window. In fact, the plaintiff can now argue that federal law and preemption has established a per se negligence violation.

Our office has developed and proved this approach. The foundation and technical fact discovery is also complex and requires some knowledge and insight into how railroads are designed and run. We are always glad to collaborate with plaintiff counsel on any such cases.

Fentanyl, is a narcotic drug which is described as between 80 to 100 times more potent than morphine. It is marketed under brand names including Sublimaze, Actiq, Durogesic, Duragesic, Fentora, and others, but is most seen outside the hospital setting in a skin-patch under the Duragesic name. Extreme caution and attention should be used when Fentanyl is to be taken, and patients as well as medical professionals can and do often make errors in administration or dosage. Those errors can quickly lead to death.

Fentanyl is a potent narcotic analgesic (pain killer) with a rapid onset and short duration of action. Its actions are not fully understood, however it is classed as a "synthetic primary μ-opioid agonist. Historically it has been used to treat chronic breakthrough pain and is commonly used in pre-surgical and surgical procedures.

Fentanyl prescriptions jumped from about 2.59 million in 2000 to 7.64 million in 2008. It has even been available in a "lollipop" form. The drug is often misused and drug abusers might cut the patches in pieces and chew them - an extaordinarily dangerous practice since there is no way to determine the dose being ingested. The manufacturer has noted that "... exposure to fentanyl gel may lead to serious adverse events, including respiratory depression and possible overdose, which may be fatal." Because of concern about deaths and overdoses resulting from fentanyl transdermal patches (Duragesic and generic versions), the FDA has issued at least two warnings on this drug, noting that it has continued to receive reports of deaths and life-threatening side effects "after doctors have inappropriately prescribed the patch or after people incorrectly used it."

Even so, the Duragesic patches have been the subject of recalls six times since 1994. Most often, the recalls are related to manufacturing errors causing the patches to leak out more of the drug than intended.

Its very high potency is a source of some problems patients encounter with this medication. Since 100 micrograms of Fentanyl is approximately equivalent to 10 mg of morphine, the dosages that will be effective for pain relief can be fatally confusing. Note that a microgram is 10 times smaller than a milligram, so in the previous sentence, the effective dose of Fentanyl is not "10" times less, rather it is 10 x 10 less. Interestingly, while Fentanyl has been associated with numerous overdose deaths, the leathal dose is undetermined for humans.

Our office has investigated and handled many Fentanyl overdose fatalities. Sometimes it appears that the patient accidentally put a new "patch" on, forgetting to take the old one off. Sometimes a second patch is improperly used to address pain that just isn't relieved. Unfortunately, many times the medical professional you rely upon just does not understand the potency of the drug, or makes an error in administering or prescribing.

In Sronce v. USA, our client was the widow of a Vietnam Veteran who died of a brain tumor while under treatment at the VA medical facilities in Danville and at other locations in Illinois. After filing, the government came in and substituted itself for the federal employee physicians and removed the case to federal court in the Southern District of Illinois under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The case was eventually transferred to the Benton courthouse for trial.

In this unfortunate case, Mr. Sronce had been treated at the Danville facility for many years for various minor issues, and an on-going PTSD problem based on his intense experiences in Vietnam. The neurology services there had extensive histories with him. However, when he began exhibiting symptoms of brain disorders, they made notes and shuffled him around, never getting any test or CT to diagnose the obvious and growing problem. He was reported as having vision problems in one eye, getting dizzy and increasingly walking into walls, he had headaches, and became incontinent, and an unexplained twitch in his arm developed to the point where his hand would jerk up and hit his head. The VA continued to shuffle him from counselor to counselor, and refer him to neurology residents who made notes and sent him on his way.

By the time an outside facility performed a CT and found the tumor, it was far too late to act. Nevertheless, the government strongly defended the case, and argued that it wouldn't have mattered if the tumor had been discovered years before. This case settled with a provision for the widow to receive payments for her future, as well as a sum for the family.

Our client, White Cleaning Services, entered into a written contract with a nursing home facility, Lincoln Home, in St. Clair County, Illinois by which White Cleaning was to provide housekeeping services to the nursing home for one year. The original agreement was modified at the request of both sides during the contract year, but the parties could not agree on which modifications were in effect. White Cleaning expressed their concern that they were not receiving the support they needed, and shortly thereafter the owners of the facility terminated the agreement.

The contract provided for liquidated damages if the contract was terminated by the Home, in the amount of the remaining contract price. Lincoln Home argued that such a liquidated provision was contrary to Illinois law. The parties attempted mediation without success, but settlement was reached on the eve of trial.

The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals ruled in line with our arguments and upheld the full damages verdict obtained in the trial court. The significance of this Opinion, however, is much wider than this particular case.

As a part of its effort to close the courtroom door to injured persons, the Missouri legislature passed several statutes labeled as tort "reform." One of these changed the way evidence has been received in court since the founding of the state Constitution. The statute in question, §490.715 RSMo, provides that a "rebuttable presumption" applies that holds that the amount of money used to "satisfy" medical bills is the "value" of those bills at trial. However, the statute also provides that the presumption may be rebutted, in which case it gives the decision of what medical bill amounts apply to the judge, taking it away from the jury.

In Berra v. Danter, the trial court properly held that we had rebutted the presumption by presenting affidavits pursuant to another statute, http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c400-499/4900000525.htm, and the judge ruled the full medical bills could be submitted to the jury. Defendant appealled all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the appeal, and the Eastern District's opinion stands. That opinion holds that the submission of proper affidavits under the statute does indeed serve to rebut the presumption as to the amount of medical bills. However, the appeals court left it open as to the judge's discretion to make the determination after that. The court did not reach the very important constitutional issue on this point.

Berra has given judges across Missouri much support in properly submitting the medical bill damages actually accrued or caused by a negligent party. However, the constitutional challenge to taking this decision away from a jury and giving it to a judge remains. Currently, there is a case under consideration by the Supreme Court, Deck, which may address this crucial issue. At present, all parties to litigation are left in the dark, subject to the individual determinations, politics, and preferences of local judges on this point. No one benefits from this statute other than the insurance companies, and there is no rational basis for taking a factual determination away from the jury, depriving litigants of a right that is preserved in both the United States and Missouri founding documents.

For a summary of the serious problems caused by the current Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery system, please see the article on this site titled "Medicare Problems Alert"

The one ray of hope for injured persons that has been offered at all is a Bill that was
introduced in Congress on March 9, 2010 that would amend the "Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007" (MMSEA) statute to address many of the concerns raised by counsel for plaintiffs, defendants and others. This Bill, the MSPEA legislation, is sponsored by five congressmen and as of this posting is still in committee.

MSPEA would make some changes to try to make it easier for medical providers and insurance companies (called "Responsible Reporting Entities" or RREs) to do their reporting, and to ease the process of how a final demand is requested from Medicare before a payment is made. One thing the Bill does is allow an estimated payment for the required reimbursement, allows some leeway in penalties for reporting errors, and provides a "good faith" harbor for some requirements.

Part of this amendment sets out that you can request from the Department of Health and Human Services (the parent agency over CMS which runs Medicare) a "final demand for reimbursement" within 120 days before the expected date of the settlement, judgment or payment. This seemingly small change is significant, because the current law does not require CMS to give you a final number until you have the settlement. CMS would have 60 days to respond with a final demand, which would remain valid for 60 days after it is received by the requesting party. Here is a part that we have never seen before: If CMS does not provide a final demand for Medicare reimbursement by the plaintiff within its time limits after a request is made, then Medicare would be deemed to waive its right to recover from the plaintiff. This is a great idea, and a real change that would streamline the entire process, since the parties would now know the precise amount owed to Medicare before a settlement is agreed, and Medicare's inefficiencies would not derail settlements at the last minute.

This Bill does not address many other serious problems with the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery system, and there are critics. Most notably, this Bill does nothing at all to clarify or define what is called the Medicare Set-Aside considerations, and therefore it continues to leave in the dark a vast area of concern by all sides as to what to do about a case that has limited insurance coverage, but a devastating injury with likely future care needs. In fact, it leaves in the dark all kinds of concerns about future needs, and so MSPRCs will continue to frustrate attorneys and settlements for the foreseeable future. The amendment also adds a 30 dollar fee to what has been a free government request up till now, but most of us see that as a small price to get some certainty in this mess.

Of course, it is only a first draft Bill. It deserves support.

For OUR CLIENTS:

One serious concern in any personal injury litigation has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It is in fact a hidden problem that can destroy any benefits you could receive, and one that can let the guilty get off for a discount, or free, at the expense of the rest of us.

The problem is Medicare. (There is a similar, in some ways worse, problem and trap related to employer-based health insurance plans, but this is discussed in another article.)

Specifically, the Medicare law provides an absolute right of the government to be reimbursed for ANY Medicare payments that are made related to the injuries you received at the hands of another party. On the surface, this seems fair. In practice, it is crushing the rights of victims and it is the single biggest headache for attorneys and insurance companies when trying to resolve a case. CMS has a division devoted to this effort, and they hire private contractors to do the dirty collection work, referred to as Medicare Secondary Payor Recovery Contractors (MSPRC). These folks can make your case impossible.

The government has set up regulations that spell out how reimbursement of Medicare payments is supposed to work. In brief, when you have a legal claim that someone else caused your injury, your attorney is supposed to put CMS on notice, and they are supposed to start a file within a certain amount of time. CMS is then supposed to start collecting information about you to find out whether and when Medicare has paid any part of your care. They are supposed to send your attorney a report called a "conditional payments" letter, that sets out what they think they have paid and therefore what is owed back to them. This is not, however, a final demand to be paid back. That comes later, and here is where big problems arise.

CMS and their "contractors" think that you should notify them AFTER you have settled a case, telling them the final settlement number. Then, and only then, will they tell you what they think you owe them in a "final demand." Part of the trick here is that, once they give you that final number, you have 60 days to pay them - regardless of whether the insurance company actually pays you the money or not, and disregarding any other problems. A second part of the trick is that, in most cases, your attorney CAN NOT settle your case without knowing the final demand, because you can't tell whether the amount is reasonable or not since you don't know if the government is going to take it all.

So, the MSPRC won't give a number without the final settlement, and you cannot get a final settlement without the number. Fine. But the system has far bigger problems for you. Because they want to be sure of getting paid back, the Medicare folks have a law that says they can come after you, your attorney, or even the responsible insurance company anytime in the future without limitation and collect double their amount plus interest and penalties if they aren't paid. For that reason, many insurance companies will simply not pay you unless they have a letter from Medicare saying that you don't owe anything, or setting out exactly what you owe. Again, since you cannot get such a number unless you can provide the settlement number to Medicare, no one gets paid without a lot of shouting and court appearances. The insurance companies have gone absolutely crazy with extra requirements about Medicare requirements in all kinds of matters without reason. Add to this the fact that there is no mechanism to get a letter from Medicare saying that you don't owe anything!

Moreover, the MSPRC are notoriously sloppy and inefficient. On many occasions, they lose files or lose track of requests or information and then require YOU TO START OVER. Note that this might mean a file you properly requested three years ago, is now going to receive a letter asking for all of the information again and start over with a notice that is will be 60 days before they even get going on the requests.

And in reality, they have no time limits. There is nothing to force them to do their job, nor to get the information you deserve. And if the claim for reimbursement is greater than the amount of insurance available to pay, there is actually no method to ask for a compromise. Because of this, many claims are never settled or even handled (why would an attorney you hired work for free for the government just to get you nothing?). The government gets less, and gets it late. You get less, and get it late. And your attorney and staff ....well, they get very very upset and work very long hours on this.

Another huge problem for lawsuits and Medicare- see the extension on Set-Asides.
Solutions on the way? See the Post titled "Medicare Help Proposal"

Continue reading "Medicare Problems Alert" »

A frequent error by physicians is to fail to act on red-flag test results, or even to tell the patient about the results. In this case, we encountered a situation where none of the treating doctors even looked at the test results, and the warnings of the radiologist just got filed away until the patient received his death sentence.

Before undergoing an orthopedic surgery to his arm, our 60 year old client was required to undergo pre-surgery screening tests to clear him for the general anesthesia. In fact, the anesthesiologist at the surgery center was the one who wrote the protocols that required a chest x-ray. The x-ray was taken at another facility, and the radiologist there noted a spot in the lung just under 2cm in size clearly appearing to be cancerous. He made a note on his report that follow-up was indicated, which of course it was. He then gave his report to the hospital staff who faxed a copy of his report to the surgery center, put a copy in the surgeon's mailbox and they all forgot it and went about their business.

This is how terrible things happen out of small errors. A nurse at the surgery center looked at the report and testified she knew it was important and put it on top of the patient's file where she knew the doctors would see it. Unfortunately, the anesthesiologist simply didn't look at the report. Neither did the surgeon. The report got shuffled into the file, and wasn't discovered until a year and a half later, when another doctor discovered that the tumor had progressed to a "stage 4" lesion which had metasasized to the bone, which gave this active family man no chance to survive at all.

At that point, the surgeon pointed out that it was the anesthesiologist's job to check the reports to clear the patient. The anesthesiologist excused himself by testifying that he didn't need to look at any tests, because he looked at the patient and decided he looked good enough to survive surgery. He also pointed out that, since the patient did survive the surgery he must have been right.

This litigation went on for several years while the parties argued about who, if anyone, should have looked at the test report that they themselves had ordered. Complex issues of Illinois law arose during that time. The matter settled right on the eve of trial. Unfortunately again, the willingness of the insurance companies to put their own interests ahead of their insured doctors as well as the injured patients dragged the case out until the patient had long passed away, and the family had been forced to suffer considerably without his support.

According to the government's own numbers, fewer medical malpractice payments were made on behalf of doctors in 2009 than any year on record. This information was published in an update of the National Practitioner Data Bank that was released in March 2010.

The data contradict claims by some that medical malpractice litigation is to blame for rising health care costs. Changing the liability system to the detriment of patients will not curb health care costs.

The value of malpractice payments in actual (unadjusted) dollars was the lowest since 1999. Adjusted for inflation, payments were at their lowest since 1992.

Last year was the fifth consecutive year the number of payments has fallen and the sixth straight year in which the value of payments has fallen. In contrast, U.S. health care costs have increased every year since 1965, the earliest year for which such data exist.

Between 2000 and 2009, health care spending rose 83 percent while medical malpractice payments fell 8 percent. (Both figures are in unadjusted dollars.)

A total of 10,772 payments were made on behalf of doctors in 2009, totaling $3.49 billion. That figure equals 0.14 of one percent of the Centers for Medicare and Medcaid Services estimated $2.5 trillion in overall U.S. health care spending for 2009.

Public Citizen, an active watch group analyzing these numbers, notes that numerous studies have found that injuries and deaths caused by medical errors dwarf the number of actual medical malpractice payments. For example, the Institute of Medicine found in 1999 that 44,000 to 98,000 people die every year due to avoidable errors. Subsequent studies have estimated even higher casualty levels.

As David Arkush, director of Public Citizen Congress Watch noted, medical malpractice payments have fallen for years and are at the lowest level on record. Lawsuit costs account for a tiny fraction of health costs, small enough to be almost disregarded in accounting terms. It is ridiculous that certain members of Congress continue to obsess about this greatly exaggerated problem, and it is simply unthinking and wrong that other public figures including commentators repeat these ideas without thinking.

We should be talking about fixing real problems like the crisis of preventable medical errors.

Did you know the dramatic increases in malpractice insurance rates in the years leading up to 2005 were not needed to pay claims, because there was no increase in claims?

In Illinois, the medical insurance business has been controlled by one company for years: ISMIE. Until a law was passed requiring the insurance industry to disclose its finances and payments, premiums for doctors and hospitals increased and increased.
HOWEVER:
ISMIE'S own data clearly shows that there was NO increase in paid claims.

In fact, the number of paid claims was actually stable or even decreasing prior to 2005.

Tort "reform" advocates, including American Tort Reform Association general counsel Victor Schwartz, admit that frivolous medical malpractice suits against doctors are uncommon, "There is no question that it is very rare that frivolous suits are brought against doctors. They are too expensive to bring."

After the cap became law in Illinois, ISMIE representatives admitted under oath that there was no actual data to support its claim of an increase in frequency of claims.
According to statements filed with the Department of Insurance, ISMIE's total annual payouts have been stable while it has collected twice as much or more in premiums each year.

Malpractice claims boost overall health care costs no more than a tiny percentage according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The Congressional Budget Office has also concluded that the most anti-patient medical malpractice "reforms" may lead to poorer health care and worse patient outcomes.
health care costs.bmp