Sweetin & Bleeke PC
Practice Areas
* General Liability Insurance Defense
* Medical Malpractice
* Worker's Compensation
* Construction Law and Litigation
* Business and Corporate Law
* Corrections Litigation
* Insurance Coverage and Fraud Investigation
* Divorce and Family Law
* Estate and Probate Law
Medical Malpractice
SweetinBleeke has extensive experience representing physicians and other healthcare providers in medical malpractice cases, both before Indiana's medical review panels and in court. We have represented physicians, podiatrists, dentists, nurses, and healthcare facilities (including nursing homes, surgery centers and hospitals). Jim Bleeke's contacts within the medical community through direct representation and insurance experience provide access to a broad range of experts to assist in defense of these cases. In addition, Jim has attempted to develop an approach to medical malpractice cases that incorporates the best of what he has observed in supervising attorneys across Indiana. That approach often results in prompt and successful resolution of cases that otherwise could drag on for several years.
Many physicians and attorneys believe that the primary ways to prevail in a medical malpractice suit are to win at Panel or to win at trial. Our experience has revealed that a large number of cases can be successfully defended without the need to present the case to a Panel or a jury, and without settling. For plaintiffs' attorneys, each case is an economic judgment weighing the potential damage award and the likelihood of success against the cost of preparing the case (in terms of out-of-pocket expenses on depositions and experts, and the attorney's time working on the case), with the knowledge that the plaintiff's attorney only gets paid if the plaintiff wins. In the Medical Review Panel process those economic judgments crystallize at a few key times, when the case is initially filed, after the Panel renders its opinion and the case must be re-filed in court, and just prior to trial. Defense attorneys can capitalize upon these economic concerns by attempting to persuade Plaintiff's counsel, early in the case before too many resources have already been invested, that the likelihood of success and/or the magnitude of recoverable damages do not warrant the long fight and expenditure of money that will be required. Therefore, early development of a strong defense theory on the standard of care or causation, or both, and selective sharing of parts of that theory with plaintiff's counsel frequently causes plaintiff's counsel to re-evaluate the case and dismiss the case prior to Panel. This obviously is the best result for the physician and the insurance company because it saves expense and avoids the risk of a surprising loss at Panel.
A key to any successful presentation is knowing your audience and tailoring your persuasive approach to the person who will be reading or hearing it. In Indiana's Medical Review Panel process the opinion of the three-person Panel often determines whether a case can be successfully defended. The Panel consists primarily of physicians. Thus, it is imperative to understand how physicians think and what influences their opinions. We believe that several elements are crucial to the decision-making process of most doctors:
* Physicians are trained as scientists - thus, a scientific approach to the medical issues, with reference to recognized medical literature and respected specialists, is more persuasive.
* Physicians generally are extremely busy and have very little free time - thus, the Panel Submission must "get to the point" early in the presentation.
* Physicians are sympathetic to patients and do not want to be associated with adverse results - thus, defense counsel must neutralize the tendency toward 20-20 hindsight by explaining how the adverse result can and does occur even with reasonable medical care, and could well happen to the patients of any of the Panel doctors.
Just as with a jury trial, the attorney should make it as easy as possible for the Panel to find in favor of the client. Recognizing the scientific training and busy schedules of Panel members, and their probable sympathy for an injured patient, the Panel Submission should attempt to concisely convey the scientific reasons why the physician acted reasonably and how the adverse result could not reasonably have been prevented. We attempt to meet these objectives by succinctly presenting the reasons why we should win the case before the Panelists actually begin reading the facts of the case, thereby providing a favorable context for them to review the actual medical care that was rendered. Specifically, we provide the Panel with: (1) an outline of why we should win the case in the Table Of Contents; (2) a brief Summary Of The Case, explaining the key reasons why we should win the case; (3) a carefully tailored statement of the issues that phrases the crucial aspects of the case in a way that predisposes the Panel to find in our favor; and (4) a detailed explanation of the rationale for the care, as seen through the eyes of the defendant, in the form of the doctor's Affidavit which is dropped directly into the text of the Submission.
Only after the Panel sees the physician's perspective in four concise but different ways, do we proceed to the actual arguments that support the contentions we have set forth previously. Ideally, the Panel should be predisposed by the preliminary materials in the Submission to decide in favor of our physician before reading the actual arguments. The discussion section of the Submission provides the Panelists with plenty of ammunition to support a decision in favor of the physician, or to persuade a fellow Panelist who might be inclined to find against the defendant doctor.
In order to increase the chances of winning at Panel, and to increase the anticipated expenses for Plaintiff's counsel if they precede post-panel, some cases warrant the overt use of highly qualified experts during the Panel presentation. In cases involving medical questions that are controversial or where a question of proper technique exists, the use of an expert with special expertise in the particular medical issue in contention can be very persuasive to the Panel members. Panelists often are less willing to be critical of a colleague, when it also requires disagreeing with a recognized expert in the field.
Sweetin & Bleeke PC
8470 Allison Pointe Blvd #420
Indianapolis IN 46250-4365
Tel: 317 567-2222
Fax: 317 567-2220
Votes:26
Comments: 0