Maryland Medical Malpractice Attorney Blog

The $11.5 million medical malpractice verdict won against a Miami orthopedist this spring, by former Dolphins receiver O.J. McDuffie, has been overturned.

At trial, McDuffie testified that the doctor never told him that he had completely ruptured the ligaments in his toe, as evidenced by MRIs performed in subsequent weeks. In fact, McDuffie told the jury that the doctor encouraged him to continue to practice and play.

So, the crux of this malpractice lawsuit is that McDuffie continued to practice and play with ruptured ligaments, which caused irreversible joint surface damage even after his doctor knew or should have known that he was causing further injury by continuing to play with the injury. It is not a surprise to see a malpractice verdict disturbed. What is surprising is when the trial judge grants a new trial for his own error on an evidentiary issue that would likely be an abuse of discretion question on appeal: whether the use of a medical manual as evidence at trial was appropriate. The judge apparently agreed that it was relevant and then reversed himself and ordered a new trial.

A new study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine underscores what patients have known for a long time: good research to find the right doctor does not necessarily yield the right doctor.

The study found only a thin correlation between how the doctor performed according to the patient and the objective facts – education, board certification, malpractice claims, disciplinary actions, etc. – that are commonly used to evaluate doctors on-line.

The study did find one thing that I have a hard time believing is true: there is no meaningful correlation between doctors who paid on malpractice claims and those who have not. There is no doubt that good doctors (and good lawyers, by the way) commit malpractice. But studies have also shown that a small number of doctors make up a large percentage of the malpractice payouts and that many of those doctors are “frequent flyers” who have been sued in the past. Moreover, there are other studies suggesting some doctors get sued more than others because they communicate so poorly. Patients usually don’t report that the doctor who communicates poorly did a great job treating them. So it’s hard to imagine how this data could be accurate. But it sounds like a quality study in a good medical journal so it will be interesting to see if there are follow-up studies that look at this issue more closely.

The Baltimore Sun published a well-written rant about the deterioration of the doctor-patient relationship. The editorial stems from the well-publicized shooting at Johns Hopkins by a man distraught about his mother’s medical treatment. The writer paints an awful picture of a war between doctors and patients that is beginning to boil over.

I can tell you that none of this is going on in my doctor’s office. But I don’t know what is going on elsewhere. The author appears to be someone in the “know” but there is no explanation of the author’s frame of reference. I would have expected the author to be identified as a doctor or other health care provider. (A quick Google search indicated the author was a writer which would make sense. The piece is well-written, florid, and dramatic.)

The author sees the problems as a symptom of the “erosion of civility, humility and reason across America.” I could not disagree more. Certainly, minorities, women, gays, and lesbians, and many others have experienced an increase in civility and reason. The good ole days never really were. I’ll take 2010 over any other year in human history.