Litigation Center fights for AMA members -- and wins

AMA LEADER COMMENTARY

A few words about current events in medical practice

SEE ARCHIVES

In an era when physicians often feel that hospital governing boards and third-party payers have the upper hand, I am thrilled to tell you about Lawnwood Medical Center v. Randall Seeger, MD.

Lawnwood's governing board thought it could tell the medical staff in no uncertain terms how to run the staff's credentialing, peer review and quality assurance functions. When the staff fought back, Lawnwood sought and received favorable legislation granting it almost supreme authority.

That's what poker players call trying to stack the deck.

But the doctors had an ace in the hole -- namely, the Litigation Center of the American Medical Association and State Medical Societies -- which was more than ready to help. Or, to be more precise, the AMA and the Litigation Center backed up the medical staff with assistance from the Florida Medical Assn.

You see, Dr. Seeger is an AMA member. And we fight for our members!

First, we won at the trial-court level, which ruled that the legislation was unconstitutional and "not required to protect the public health, ensure the quality of care at Lawnwood, or accomplish some other legitimate public purpose."

Then, we won at the appellate court level.

Finally, we won at the Florida Supreme Court, which firmly rejected Lawnwood's arguments and the legislation's grant of "almost absolute power" to Lawnwood.

The lawyers have all sorts of fancy names for the victory.

The bottom line is that, thanks to the Litigation Center, AMA members won the day.

~~~

For long-time members and careful readers of AMNews, the Lawnwood decision really won't be a surprise. The Litigation Center has helped score similar victories over the years:

• Medical Staff of Community Memorial Hospital of San Buenaventura v. Community Memorial Hospital of San Buenaventura. The Litigation Center helped secure a settlement in which the medical staff, hospital administration and board of trustees must comply with all provisions of the medical staff bylaws. Furthermore, the settlement provided that the hospital governing body must not unreasonably withhold approval of amendments to those bylaws adopted by the medical staff.
• Washington State Medical Assn. v. Regence BlueShield. Rather than face a lawsuit charging violations of the Washington Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices statute, defamation, intentional interference with contract and breach of contract, Regence wisely chose to settle with the Litigation Center and the Washington State Medical Assn. Under the settlement, Regence must allow WSMA to provide objective criteria for physician performance measurements, and any new Regence plan must allow physicians to appeal their scores.

Think about it: Litigation Center activities have helped level the playing field for medical staffs in Washington, Florida and California. These are not isolated incidents -- these are precedent-setting legal decisions and settlements.

The attorneys call them "landmark decisions." I call them benefits of membership.

And that's not all.

The current national landscape may not be the most fertile for medical liability reform, but we will continue to seek opportunities to advance federal reforms because we know that also helps efforts at the state level, as many who have achieved state-level reforms know well.

We were all buoyed a few years ago by a tremendous victory in Texas. That state's patients and physicians continue to benefit from that victory -- see "Texas liability reforms spur plunge in premiums and lawsuits" (AMNews, Sept. 8).

But we cannot -- and will not -- rest on our victories when opponents are trying to undo those reforms.

Guess what? The Litigation Center is ready.

The Litigation Center is working with the Arizona Medical Assn. to protect reasonable restrictions on qualifications of expert witnesses in medical liability suits (see Seisinger v. Siebel).

The Litigation Center is helping the Medical Assn. of Georgia to uphold legislatively enacted caps on noneconomic damages (see Park v. Wellstar Health System).

The Litigation Center is standing side by side with the Illinois State Medical Society as the state's new law imposing caps on noneconomic damages in medical liability suits works its way through the courts (see Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital).

The Litigation Center and Washington State Medical Assn. are trying to protect certificates of merit (see Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Center).

And the Litigation Center is also working with the Wisconsin Medical Society to protect sensible caps on noneconomic damages as well as ensuring no liability to bystanders (see Phelps v. Physicians Insurance Co. of Wisconsin).

These cases may not make national headlines, but I think you would agree that they are of critical importance to physicians.

Without the Litigation Center, imagine what would happen to the legal landscape for physicians. And while you consider that, realize how these efforts all share a few important elements.

First, all involved legal issues important to AMA members.

Second, all of those involved learned firsthand of the legal powerhouse that resides in the House of Medicine.

And third, all those folks learned that the key to that house is membership. If you want the benefits from the Litigation Center, you must be an AMA member.

Dr. Heyman, an obstetrician-gynecologist in private practice in Amesbury, Mass., is immediate past chair of the AMA Board of Trustees. Learn more about Dr. Heyman at the AMA's bio page.

Back to top