At least, that’s the first (and obviously cynical) thought that popped in my head when I read the headline, “Political Malpractice.”

This suit, by Angeleno Sandy Hubbard, sprang from a recommendation by none other than L.A. Planning Commission President Jane Ellison Usher, who recommended that someone challenge the policy in court.

It was, to be sure, unusual for a top city official to publicly acknowledge the futility of trying to appeal to elected officials’ sense of civic duty. But to her credit, Usher frankly advised residents to sue before this new building rule wrecks neighborhoods.

The so-called “density bonus” that the Los Angeles City Council adopted earlier this year – and which Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has endorsed in spirit – allows developers to run roughshod over the few city planning restrictions that could protect the public from bad development.

I can understand the perceived need to go this route, and it might be the right option. However, I have to say something about the premise that starts the article.

ONE of the important checks to weed out incompetent doctors, and keep them from injuring or killing their patients, is the prospect of a legitimate malpractice lawsuit.

For that reason, it’s telling that the lawyer who filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Valley Village woman against the city of Los Angeles referred to the city’s density bonus as “political malpractice.”

And why not?

If malpractice lawsuits can help protect the public from harmful medical incompetence, why not a lawsuit that can protect the public from harmful political incompetence?

The point may stand since the word, “legitimate” is used in the lead sentence. But the truth is that the system can only work if it does indeed restrict lawsuits to the legitimate cases. Otherwise, if doctors see no rational connection between their behavior and being hurt or destroyed by the legal system, the malpractice system will not work like it is supposed to. Rather than weeding out incompetent doctors, it will weed out doctors who might have served high-risk patients. It will weed out doctors in areas of medicine that are riskier than others, and leave desperate patients without any chance at medical care. It will also provoke a host of preventative measures that drive up costs in a way that makes health care less affordable to everyone. And so on…