MED MAL - The Good, the Bad and The Ugly....

Here's why many lawyers won't touch a med mal or medical negligence case versus why I am intrigued by them ...

• They're time consuming. (So? I've got to do something with my time.)
• They don't want to upset their doctor friends. (I've got great doctors who understand I do this honestly and respect my work though it does make them uncomfortable; besides, I was not the cutest or most popular fellow in my high school class. PS My wife, children and dogs still like me fine.)
• They're very expensive to pursue. (I've got some extra money available from time to time to help folks who need help; and too, sometimes the clients will pay the expenses.)
• The South is conservative. (So? Conservatives still want to be treated properly.)
• The South is 'Republican'. (So? As I type this, Senator Jim DeMint's Mother is involved in a malpractice case against a treating doctor for radiation burn injuries. Everyone deserves competent health care.)
• The medicine is another thing that has to be learned. (I'm used to it and like it. Of course, I am not a doctor. Still, I've been reading and learning this stuff for three decades and I have a fairly high comfort zone with it.)
• They are a whole lot of work. (What isn't?)
• They are complex and complicated. (They are intellectually intriguing.)
• They require more 'trial' work. (I've done my share and will do more before it's all over. I'm accustomed to the work.)
• They drive their staff crazy. (Ours too but they're really good with these cases and take enormous pride in their efforts in our various cases. I drive them crazy anyway.)
• They are witness and expert intensive. (True and to me, that's part of their intrigue; they are very much like pulling a large puzzle together and it's being done with a combination of law, medicine and people, a fascinating combination.)

Here is what I look for:

• The "OH MY GOD!!!!" factor. When I hear or read the story of what happened, do I reflexively and instantly think, "OH MY GOD!!!! THIS IS AWFUL!!" To me, it is an excellent benchmark of how a jury might receive the case.
• Are the clients nice folks? Will they present well? Are their life's stories compelling?
• Can the case be cleanly presented? Or, are there complicating problems with messy previous medical histories and preexisting conditions?
• Can I explain this case clearly and concisely to a stranger in 25 words or less? If not, then there may be problems in getting others, like adjusters, lawyers, judges and jurors to "get it".
• Who exactly are the defendants? Hospitals? Doctors? Nurses? It depends.
• Can the case be efficiently put together? Medical experts run $500 an hour and much higher. Can they be found? Will they come to court and testify if they find negligence?
• Where is the case to be tried? Urban or rural? Business-friendly or Worker-friendly?
• Is there a specific, identifiable cause of injury or is it more complicated, a series of events?
• Is the type of treatment complained of standardized and well in place over time or is it an experimental or new therapy?
• Is the injury the result of psychiatric treatment or cosmetic surgery that has had an unappealing result?
• Is there a pharmacological/prescription problem within the case?
• And I also think about many, many other things that, depending on the case, must be considered.