The doctor won his case—fine. But now that it is established in Tennessee law and Tennessee medicine that shoulder dystocia that cannot be resolved with “initial maneuvers” is a medical emergency, you can bet that victims’ lawyers are going to find ways to demonstrate that a particular case is one in which the doctor did not know how to deal with this particular “sudden emergency.” In short, the Olinger case provides a roadmap for how to win (or turn down) a shoulder dystocia case.
OBG MANAGEMENT: What do you think about proposals set forth to resolve the malpractice crisis?
LASKA: In the 1970s, physicians advocated malpractice review panels to end the so-called crisis. These panels fell from favor because they did not work. Now, the idea du jour is the establishment of special “malpractice courts.”
What will be the result? A cadre of superspecialists will develop who handle nothing but malpractice court cases. The typical lawyer will refer cases to one of these superspecialists (as they usually do now), and it will become easier to prove the standard of care nationwide. After all, why should the handling of a case involving shoulder dystocia be different in Phoenix than it is in Nashville?
Doctors, be careful what you wish for. Special malpractice courts are the first step toward national standards of care.
OBG MANAGEMENT: A final question: Who buys your book, Sue the Doctor and Win!, as far as you are able to gauge?
LASKA: The primary buyers have been MD/JDs, probably because they all wanted to write such a book. Nurse consultants have also been buying it, as well as “puppy” lawyers at malpractice firms.
By the way, the book has sold poorly. Everybody thinks they already know all they need to know about malpractice. That includes doctors and victim’s lawyers.
f