Having dabbled in the medmal blogosphere I have found a lot more material out there written by attorneys for potential litigants than I have for doctors and those concerned about insurance and other expenses. (I’ve also found a plethora of blogs that are simply robots that find online news stories and post links to them on the blog. That seems useless to me. We can all do the same thing through Google News.) This morning, however, I noticed a doctor who recommended an attorney’s blog entry about what goes on “behind the scenes” of a potential case. The attorney, Eric Turkewitz, a New York personal injury lawyer, summarizes fives steps that a potential case must survive:

1. The Phone Call
2. The Interview
3. The Record Review
4. The Expert Review
5. The Other Expert Review

It is an interesting post, thought I doubt many readers here will agree with his perspective.

What I thought was more interesting, which I might have missed except that a commenter on the Kevin, MD blog asked about it, was his last observation:

those that advocate dismembering the malpractice system and replacing it with some type of no-fault or other system with lower barriers fail to realize that it would result in an absolute flood of matters pouring in, significantly eclipsing that which now exists.

This makes a certain amount of sense. To the extent that you offer people an efficient tool to do a certain activity it is probably more likely that they will engage in that activity. The commenter writes,

I think he has a point that health courts would create more cases by facilitating the time and effort involved in bringing a case. Does anyone else think this?

I’m curious about this myself. Is there something that is being overlooked in this prediction? Would “health courts” involve a better and more stringent vetting system than what Turkewitz envisions? I’d like to hear what other people think.

ASIDE:

I also saw this morning a story about failed tort reform, that would almost be humorous if the issue was not serious.

GOVERNOR Brad Henry is asking state lawmakers to approve a comprehensive tort reform initiative that will stamp out frivolous lawsuits and prevent abuse to make Oklahoma’s civil justice system ‘the best in the nation.’ ”

How we wish the above quote were from a news story that appeared last week in The Oklahoman. Instead, it’s from a press release issued by Henry’s office on Jan. 30, 2004.

A little more than three years after pledging to make the state’s tort system “the best in the nation,” Henry vetoed a bill that would have gone a long way toward doing just that. In response, for at least the third time, a newspaper that reaches virtually every business leader in the nation blasted Henry for his latest backflip on tort reform.

The featured remark in The Wall Street Journal’s May 10 editorial was “Oklahoma loses to Texas — again.”

My only point here is that, if a politician is breaking a promise that he has made by vetoing legislation that he requested, you know that there is a pretty powerful lobby on the other side of the issue.