Commentary

A strong case isn’t the main reason insurance companies settle


 

“AFRAID OF GETTING SUED? A PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY OFFERS COUNSEL (BUT NO SYMPATHY)” JANELLE YATES (OCTOBER 2009)

I strongly disagree with Dr. Laska about why insurance companies settle cases involving an infant who has brain damage. First, it is very difficult for a lay jury to comprehend the scientific evidence presented. Some of this evidence gets distorted by the theatrics on both sides. Second, and probably more important, is the sympathy factor. It is almost impossible for jurors not to feel sympathy for an impaired infant and the parents. In the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the tendency is to side with the plaintiff for unreasonably large sums of someone else’s money! This, I believe, is what drives insurance companies to settle this type of case—not an overwhelming belief that negligence caused the unfortunate outcome.

William Deschner, MD
Seattle, Wash

Recommended Reading

Pregnancy, Breastfeeding May Cut Bone Loss
MDedge ObGyn
Infants Benefit From Maternal Flu Vaccination
MDedge ObGyn
Managing Several Serious Skin Diseases in Expectant Moms
MDedge ObGyn
Gestational Hypertension Risk Up With SDB
MDedge ObGyn
Oral Antihyperglycemic Agents and Diabetes in Pregnancy
MDedge ObGyn
Most Antibacterial Drugs Not Associated With Birth Defects
MDedge ObGyn
Documenting Injuries After a Sexual Assault
MDedge ObGyn
Oophorohysterectomy May Affect Women's Sexual Functioning
MDedge ObGyn
Study: Pelvic Floor Disorders Do Not Affect Sexual Activity
MDedge ObGyn
ACIP Supports Use of Second HPV Vaccine
MDedge ObGyn