If a patient has no health insurance or money, but a doc treats him anyway, should he be able to sue...?

Question

for malpractice if the doctor makes a mistake? If so, what doctors do you think will continue to work in poor communities?

General info - Most public aid patients do not pay, and the doctor get about $15 for 4-5 hours of work. Malpractice insurance goes up every time a doctor is sued and it can be very stressful because in some cases one can sue for more than the insured amount...so the doctor can lose everything to someone s/he volunteered to help.

I am biased due to the number of doctors in my family, so I am curious what the general public thinks.

PS -- Let's assume it's not gross negligence like cutting off the wrong leg or something insane...

anna 13 - i take it you are a lawyer? I get my information from a large # of my family members (immediate and extended) who have been doctors for 20+ years. The government gives checks for $15-$40 for treating a public aid patient (40 is rare) - should I scan one and post it? You are only looking at one side of the fence here like a typical lawyer (and it's the one where you cash your paycheck, so surprise! surprise!)

no doctor would make the argument you are making so i don't buy it. my relatives make 400+ (gross) but they SEE public aid patients who take up 1/2 their day for $20. Then, they have to run though 20 paying patients for the rest of the day to make up for it. We obviously live in different areas of the country (and you are obviously not a doctor).

Answer 1

He shouldn't be, but he will be able to sue. It's wrong, but that's how it is.

If it isn't gross negligence, the insurance company will usually try to settle before trial.

Answer 2

First, doctors who work for "public aid" clinics and hospitals make very good money. I don't know where you got the idea that doctors get $15 for 4-5 hours of work. I worked in a large county hospital where my boss (a doctor) made a quarter million a year.

Second, the very same people blathering about the number of "frivolous" lawsuits are the ones who will be the first seeking legal help when they or someone they love is harmed by a medical professional. Much of the outrage about medical malpractice is a bunch of hype that has been stirred up in order to protect the insurance industry. It is not based on reality - it is mostly hype.


The standard for medical malpractice is quite high compared to standards in other types of tort law. It is not enough for a doctor to merely harm a patient; he/she must also be failing to exercise the care that a reasonable doctor in his/her situation would exercise, and that failure must cause measurable damage. The vast majority of med mal cases are tossed as meritless.

Ordinary people have the impression that tort law is out of control because of the few, rare cases where someone SEEMS to have been given a windfall. But I GUARANTEE that people who blather about how tort/med mal law is out of control based on the few seemingly outrageous awards that plaintiffs have been given have never even read the cases that they supposedly cite. Before you talk about how out of control med malpractice is, read a few actual cases.

Do you really think that people, if they had the choice, would opt to be mistreated by a doctor on the slim chance that after five years of legal wrangling they might make a little money? No one chooses to be harmed by a doctor, and there is no way to reverse any damage that has been done. The only recourse is financial. And how much money would the average person take in exchange for being given the wrong medication and forced onto a ventilator? Or to have a doctor fail to diagnose a cancer that ends up costing someone a body part? How much money would you want to have the wrong leg taken off?

You call removal of the wrong leg "insane," but you'd be surprised how often medical mistakes lead to this kind of result. Further, the kinds of cases that DO make it to a jury eventually ARE the kinds of cases like the "insane" type that you cite. No judge worth his/her law degree would waste legal resources on cases where there wasn't actual, measurable damage. And if there is damage, why can't the harmed person get some justice?

Answer 3

I think the patient should be able to sue regardless of his/her payment status. But I also think the insurance companies, hospitals and other involved parties should be so eager to settle when facing a lawsuit. It's pretty common for an insurance company or hospital to offer a small settlement before even really reviewing the suit--- if you are suing for $40 million, they will offer you $6000 or something, right off the bat. It's cheaper than paying all the attorneys to review the case on its merits. But it encourages people to sue when they really have no reason to do so.

I think if it were not so easy to win a settlement, less people would be suing. My brother is a doctor and he is being sued right now in a meritless case (patient got substandard care at another emergency room, went home, got sicker for 3 days, took an ambulance to his ER and died 8 minutes after she arrived and was checked in). The hospital did offer this person's family a settlement even though the case has no merits-- they have opted for their day in court, thankfully. Too many people think you can sue anytime you're too sick to cure, or you don't get the answer you want from the doctor. They treat it like it's a lottery payout. Pretty sad.

Answer 4

I think there should be a limit and long and tedious process to it. Health Care Professionals MUST be protected no matter what. Lawsiuts today are so ridiculous that it makes the legal system look like a damne circus.

If they don't or can't pay, then they shouldn't be allowed to sue..simple as that.

Health care professionals must be protected against lawsuits so they can be more confident and so they can concentrate more on the problem to fix rather than consequences of a lawsuit.

Answer 5

human beings really might want to care more desirable about the fee of care and under no circumstances about coverage businesses!! coverage is basically that coverage and prefer all kinds of coverage they have limits and maximums searching on the rates you pay. in the different case they does not also manage to exist in any respect. And what makes you imagine a "authorities" option is going to remove all the rubbish. coverage is severe priced because of all the mandates!! party in vast apple a coverage can not be written that would not contain accupunture and many different remedies there's a itemizing, why can not someone basically have a coverage for existence threating themes (maximum cancers etc. ) and pay funds for traditional medical doctors visits?? well-being coverage has little result on progression of drugs , this may be effected through restricting revenue of drug compaines and such who improve issues interior the medical container

Answer 6

No they shouldn't be able to sue but that's not saying someone looking to get rich quick....won't. They should be grateful that someone will help them even though they have no money. But you know that old saying, "If you pick up a dog and feed him, he will not bite you, the same cannot be said for man." How true that is. People never fail to amaze me, seeing them do or say something awful and making what they done or said ...right in their mind.

Answer 7

i don't know about the suing, but because of all the frivolous suits for WHATEVER, alot of doctors are leaving the medical profession and more young people are going to college and choosing careers outside of the medical field because they don't want the headaches of worrying about lawsuits.
so......when we have a shortage of doctors.......who will we sue???

Answer 8

yes you can sue

Answer 9

yes, of course.