Damian,
If it will make you feel any better, the "release of liability" is worth no more than the paper it is printed on. Funny, the lawyers write these things up to "protect" us, then they come back and tell us they are worthless. And, of course they charge us both times
I sit and review the credentialls of physicians applying to work in my hospital. Case after case after case of patients suffering side-effects or poor outcomes that they were warned about in the "release of liability" forms result in settlements of tens of thousands of dollars. Whatever it is, if it involves a child, figure one hundreds of thousands of dollars...no malpractice, just a bad outcome and the possibility of a sympathetic jury.
I could tell you nightmare stories. I recall one doc, who was only peripherally involved with child that suffered blindness during a procedure. No malpractice, and he wasn't really even involved. However, he was named in the suit because he read an x-ray. The surgeon and all the other docs directly involved settled for several hundred K each, leaving him out to dry. If a case like this goes to court, and you lose, and are found even 1% culpable, you get to pay the entire difference between what was already settled by the other docs, and what the jury awards. In this case, the family was asking for 6-7 million dollars. Had he gone to court and lost, and been found 1% responsible, he would have been on the hook for 6-7 million dollars minus about $500K that had already been paid. Most malpractice coverage in the US tops out at 1 million dollars. He and his family would have lost everything. Needless to say, his lawyer and insurer told him to accept the settlement offer of $850K.
Really, he had almost nothing to do with the case. I see it all the time. Not usually for so much money, but for between $10K to $100K all the time. A jury is rarely sympathetic to the "Wealthy Doctor" and his insurance company, no matter what really happened.
Just remember that the trial lawyers OWN the Democrats, and perpetuate this rediculous process for their own benefit.
Ron, one thing I think we can agree on is that liability is out of control, and operating in a somewhat irrational manner, just as you describe above. You know how the drill goes, plaintiff attorney X paints a horrific picture of a sympathetic plaintiff, suggesting that the doc/hospital defendant should have done a better job, while at the same time implying that the defendant's insurance can "afford" to absorb the loss regardless of whether, in fact, there was a breach of the standard of care. Jury falls for it and kaboom, multi-million dollar award.
However, I'm curious how apportionment of fault is operating to leave later defedants on the hook beyond their apportioned fault....?? In the cases I've seen (very few) the % apportionment has stuck right to the end. In other words, you pay (settle) for your apportioned fault, regardless of whether you're named up front, or come in later on in the lawsuit. Perhaps it depends on what State you're in. In WA State apportionment of fault seems to be working pretty well, at least as far as that aspect goes.
