Voters let bad doctors off the hook

To the editor:

In last Sunday’s editorial slamming the trial lawyers for their frenzied involvement in the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada hepatitis and HIV scare, you took bits and pieces of my prior quote in order to prove your point. That’s OK, but you forgot to tell the rest of the story.

The last time there was a doctor-lawyer media frenzy was between 2002 and 2004, when the medical profession and the insurance industry teamed up to create a medical malpractice insurance crisis. Insurance companies pulled out of Nevada and doctors threatened to leave the state unless limits were placed on a victim’s right to recover against a negligent doctor.

A special session of the legislature passed so-called tort reform limiting patient recovery to $350,000 in general damages even in the most tragic circumstances, but the doctors smelled more patient and trial lawyer blood. Dr. Dipak Desai, owner of the endoscopy center, led the charge for more limitations in the form of voter initiatives in 2004, which cut attorneys’ contingency fees in half on larger cases.

Of course, the one-sided new laws did not reduce medical malpractice. They did, however, reduce the number of claims. Indeed, a 2004 Rand Corp. report confirms that capping general damages and restricting attorneys’ fees stabilizes the insurance market, but not for the right reasons. The report concludes that the double-whammy of caps on recovery and cuts in plaintiff’s (but not defendant’s) attorneys’ fees effectively cuts off access to redress for many medical malpractice victims because most patient lawyers can no longer economically handle hard-fought medical malpractice cases.

After helping to emasculate the rights of medical malpractice victims, Dr. Desai then formed and continues to serve as a director of Nevada Mutual Insurance Co. Inc. which insures many doctors in Nevada, including himself. Conveniently, Nevada Mutual’s main office is located right across the street from the endoscopy center, which has been shut down as a danger to the public. No doubt many of the 40,000 patients put at risk by the shoddy practices of Dr. Desai’s center voted to "Keep Our Doctors In Nevada" back in 2004. Perhaps the next time some doctors threaten to leave the state, the people should consider letting them go.

The Review-Journal claims that the victims of blood-borne and often fatal viruses from the unsanitary practices of the endoscopy center are seeking to win the "lawsuit lottery" and that a simple demand letter will make these cases easy money for trial lawyers. Nowhere in Sunday’s editorial, however, does the Review-Journal reveal that the endoscopy center’s liability insurance limits with Nevada Mutual are only $3 million, so let’s do the math: $3 million divided by 40,000 patients is $75, which doesn’t even cover the cost of lab testing.

My guess is the 40,000 terrorized patient victims are hoping the crafty trial lawyers will figure out a way to obtain more insurance coverage to cover medical expenses for testing for all and treatment for the unlucky, but hopefully few. I doubt that with the magnitude of claims, the cap on general damages will even come into play before the insurance and assets run out. Rest assured that finding additional insurance coverage and proving liability will take more than a simple demand letter, as your editorial suggests.

Meanwhile, the Review-Journal will continue to bash trial lawyers, but if you will excuse me, I have a waiting room full of anxious clients who need solutions to this crisis that have not been found in the newspaper.

Richard Harris

LAS VEGAS