Personal Injury Law Blogs

An In-Depth Look at Both Sides of Personal Injury Negligence

If someone’s actions have caused you direct physical or mental harm, it is possible that you can file a personal injury negligence lawsuit. However, in order to win the case, you will need to be able to prove that the person in question was actually negligent. For example, if someone gets behind the wheel of their car after having too much to drink and they crash into your vehicle, it will be easy to prove that they were negligent.

But a personal injury case will only let you pursue financial compensation for any injuries that you suffered. In other words, according to the DeVore Law Office, if you are driving down a freeway in Saint Paul, Minnesota, and a drunk driver injures you and totals your car, you will have to take separate legal action if the insurance company does not cover all of your vehicle’s damages.

How is Negligence Determined?

A person can be considered negligent if their specific action or inaction causes another person to suffer bodily injury. However, there are some situations when it is difficult to determine if someone should truly be held negligent. Consider, for example, how often surgeons perform high risk surgeries. Although they might have a patient die on their table as a result of a surgery, they will most likely not be held negligent as long as they followed all of the correct procedures. On the other hand, if a surgeon loses a piece of jewelry inside a patient and this causes serious complications, the patient will most likely be able to win a medical malpractice case against the doctor because of the injury that they incurred.

How can I Avoid Being Negligent?

Because we live in a highly litigious society, it is essential to take steps to protect yourself from dealing with a personal injury lawsuit. For example, if there are any trip hazards on your property, you should get them fixed as soon as possible. In the meantime, you might want to consider spray painting the issue to call attention to it so that people are less likely to trip. Additionally, if you have a pool in your backyard, you need to keep it secured at all times and put a sign up that indicates that people cannot swim without permission. Doing this will help you win a personal injury or wrongful death case if a child enters your property without your permission and drowns in the pool.

Working with an Attorney

Whether you have been accused of negligence or want to file a lawsuit against someone else, you should always work with an attorney who has experience with personal injury cases. After all, these lawyers will have the best chance of successfully representing you, and you do not want to take any chances with a case that could have serious financial ramifications.

Proving negligence is not always easy, but as long as you gather all of the applicable evidence, it is definitely possible to win your case, especially with a skilled personal injury attorney on your side.

Anthony Joseph is a blogger/author who has a strong interest in the area of injury law. Kevine DeVore, of the DeVore Law Office, is based in Minnesota and is known for his aggressive legal tactics and track record of success for both personal injury and negligence defense clients.

Juvenile vs. Adult Crime Rates- A Closer Look

According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), violent juvenile crimes have dropped 55 percent from their peak in the mid ’90s. However, the arrest rate for violent crimes is still hovering around 255 for every 100,000 citizens between the ages of 10 and 17. Meanwhile, the overall national violent crime rate is at 386, and this indicates that people of all ages are involved in these crimes. Fortunately, the nation has seen a big decline in the violent crime rate for both adults and juveniles over the past 20 years.

Do Juvenile Offenders become Adult Criminals?

Several studies have indicated that no level of punishment will prevent all juvenile offenders from becoming career criminals. However, there is evidence to suggest that treating juveniles as adults will actually make them more likely to become a repeat offender. There are several potential reasons for this, including the fact that being housed with older criminals makes it easier to gain access to an advanced level of crime-related knowledge. Additionally, individuals under the age of 18 are more susceptible to peer pressure, and they might end up committing new crimes when they are released in order to gain acceptance from some of the people they met in prison.

Is the Cycle Inevitable?

Treating young offenders accordingly by placing them in a juvenile facility can help turn the child or teenager’s life around. However, it is important for the offender to receive counseling while they are going through a juvenile program. Once they are released, they will need to have a strong support system in place. After all, an offender of any age who is released without the means to make money legally will easily be tempted back into a life of crime.

Why do Juvenile’s Commit Crimes?

According to Yampolsky & Margolis Criminal Lawyers, there are just as many reasons for juvenile crime as there are for adult crime, but the motives are often very different. For example, a 25-year-old offender might steal a car because they are broke and plan to sell it for parts. On the other hand, a 16-year-old offender is more likely to steal a car because they want to take a joy ride or have been goaded into it by their so-called friends. However, if the juvenile offender does not receive the proper assistance when they are released, they can quickly turn into an adult who needs to steal in order to pay for food.

Do Scared Straight Programs Work?

For several years, the legal system placed an emphasis on sentencing juveniles like an adult as part of the concept of scaring them straight. As previously mentioned, this has not provided the anticipated results. In fact, many areas are revising their approach to juvenile offenders in the hope that they can be more easily rehabilitated. However, according to www.devorelawoffice.com, Minnesota is one of many states that require juveniles who have been sentenced as an adult to face the same sentencing terms again if they commit another crime.

If your child or teenager has been accused of committing a crime, it is important to hire criminal lawyers Sydney with experience working with the juvenile legal system. With the right legal approach, the young offender might be able to avoid being sentenced as an adult. These criminal lawyers Melbourne are experts in criminal procedures and can help guide your teen through the criminal court system.

Blogger Anthony Joseph enjoys discussing and writing about statistics of young adults in the legal system. Kevin DeVore, at www.devorelawoffice.com, is a fierce attorney who practices in various areas of law. He’s been continuously recognized as a ‘Super Lawyer’ for nine years running, and is well known in the legal field in Minnesotta.

Leeds firm ordered to pay substantial fine after death of worker

A Leeds-based firm has been ordered by a court to pay a heavy fine and large costs after a worker died because it failed to properly follow health and safety laws.

AETC Ltd, a Leed-based specialist engineering company, was sentenced by the Leeds Crown Court this month after a worker died from serious head injuries.

Mr Graham Britten, 46, worked for the firm, which specialises in manufacturing products for the aerospace and power generation industries. On 4 November 2009 Mr Britten was inspecting a vacuum casting furnace which had jammed at the company’s factory near Leeds. He found that the sliding doors to the furnace had jammed half-way and was carrying out maintenance work on these when the doors suddenly shut, trapping his head.

The Health and Safety Executive was notified of the accident and investigated. The investigation found that the company had not put in place effective policies and procedures relating to isolation procedures for maintenance work on the furnace and had failed to implement health and safety recommendations from its own health and safety manager. Further, the HSE concluded that the firm had failed to properly and adequately train and supervise the staff that were working in the factory. It therefore recommended that a criminal prosecution be initiated against the company.

The matter came before the Leeds Crown Court on 5 July 2013. AETC Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of s.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was therefore ordered to pay a fine of £300,000 and to pay the prosecution’s costs of £77,500.

It is not currently known whether Mr Britten’s family are claiming for personal injury against the firm.

It is not clear as to whether the company’s criminal defence solicitors commented on the matter after the ruling.

Marc Hadrill, a personal injury solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case that: “Businesses have a duty to train and supervise their staff adequately so as to ensure that the risk to workers is – so far as is practicable – minimised. If a business fails to do so and this results in injury to its staff then it may face criminal charges.”

HSE inspector Dr Angus Robbins stated after the ruling: “When the valve jammed, air pressure continued to build up in the cylinder that drives the valve such that, when the jam was cleared, the stored energy caused the valve to close rapidly with tragic consequences. Safe isolation procedures with training, supervision and monitoring would have prevented Mr Britten’s needless death.”

Direct 2 Lawyers offer employment law advice from specialist employment law solicitors

Bradford Council fined after worker falls 35 feet from cherry-picker

A Council in the north of England has been fined and ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs after a worker nearly died in a fall last year.

Bradford Council appeared in front of the Bradford Magistrates’ Court last month after a worker was extremely seriously injured in a fall from a cherry picker because of the Council’s failure to adhere to health and safety laws.

The 23-year-old worker – who remains anonymous for personal reasons – was working in Brierly Hall Woods last year when the accident happened. The worker had been instructed to prune the branches of trees in the woods and he was using a cherry picker for this purpose. He was working at a height of about 35 feet when the cherry picker overturned, sending the worker plummeting to the ground. He sustained serious injuries as a result, including a fractured spine, fractured collar-bone, and fractures to his pelvis and right leg. He also sustained serious internal injuries that required surgery.

It is not currently known whether the man has claimed or will claim personal injury against Bradford Council. He was unable to work for five months as a result of the accident and although he has returned to work he can no longer carry out working on trees at height.

The accident was reported to the Health and Safety Executive and they investigated the matter. The HSE investigation found that Bradford Council had failed to properly follow health and safety procedures and that this could have caused the accident. The investigation therefore recommended that a prosecution be initiated against Bradford Council.

The matter came before the Bradford Magistrates’ Court on 25 June 2013. The court heard evidence that the Council had failed to properly plan and organise the work, resulting in the work being done in dangerous conditions.

Bradford Council admitted to breaching s.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £12,000, as well as ordered to pay £9,623 in costs for the prosecution.

Chris Hadrill, an employment law solicitor at Redmans Solicitors, commented on the case that: “Potentially dangerous work needs to be properly assessed and monitored to ensure that injury doesn’t come to employees. Bradford Council failed to adhere to proper procedure relating to health and safety regulations and were therefore found by the Magistrates Court to have committed a criminal offence.”

A Health and Safety Executive inspector, Mr David Welsh, also commented that: “The use of a vehicle-mounted cherry picker for work at height needs to be properly planned and organised. The Council failed to assess the risks of the tree pruning work and provided unsuitable mats for the stabiliser feet, which led to an unsafe system of work being in operation.”

Bradford Council apparently did not comment after the ruling.

Redmans Solicitors offer compromise agreement advice to employees and employer

Newport Council fined for allowing contractor to carry out work on boiler

A Welsh local authority has been heavily fined by a Magistrates Court after it allowed a contractor to perform work when it had not properly checked his competence to do so.

Newport City Council have got into hot water with the law after it engaged a contractor in 2010 to carry out work on a loft conversion at a property near Newport, Wales. This work was carried out in November 2010. As part of the conversion work the contractor had to move a boiler in the house and replace a flue. However, the work was not done competently and this left the boiler and flue in an “immediately dangerous” condition, with potentially lethal fumes seeping into the house.

The householder subsequently complained that her boiler was not working and that it was leaking. She therefore called an independent engineer to inspect the boiler. This engineer reviewed the situation and informed her that she should not use the boiler or the flue. He also recommended that she contact Gas Safe so that they could commence an investigation. The Gas Safe Investigation found that the work on the boiler had not been carried out competently and the matter was referred on to the Health and Safety Executive (“HSE”). The HSE investigation resulted in a recommendation that Newport City Council should be prosecuted for failing to instruct a competent contractor to carry out the work.

The case came before the Cwmbran Magistrates Court on 24 June 2013. The court heard how the HSE investigation had instructed the householder to contract the company that carried out the work without checking the company’s competence to do so or monitoring their work whilst it was carried out. Further, the Council apparently did not follow its own rigid policies and procedures relating to choosing contractors – it did not ask the householder to choose from a list of approved contractors and did not pass the matter through the department that normally undertook such work.

The Council pleaded guilty to a breach of s.3(1) of the Health and Safety At Work etc Act 1974. It was fined £20,000 as a result and ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs of £11,000. The criminal defence solicitors for the Council did not comment after the judgment.

The HSE inspector responsible for the case, Mr Dean Baker, commented after the judgment that: “Newport City Council failed in their obligation to the family to ensure that the contractors they were paying to do the work were able to do it competently and to monitor the work being carried out on their behalf. The shoddy and careless work by the contractors could have cost a family with young children their lives. Anyone carrying out work on or near a flue should get the advice of a Gas Safe Registered engineer before starting work.”

Chris Hadrill, an employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case that: “It’s not only the people doing the work who have a duty to ensure that health and safety laws have complied with – the person contracting for the work to be done also has a duty to ensure that a competent person is chosen to undertake the work and that the work is also monitored.”

Direct 2 Lawyers offer employment law advice from specialist solicitors to employees and employers

Dorset contractor fined after health and safety breaches

A Dorset-based contractor has been fined by a Magistrates Court after it was exposed that he had failed to adequately monitor health and safety on work sites.

Mr Anthony Fry had been contracted to carry out work on a farm in Dorset in 2011. This work included building a single dwelling at the farm and replacing the barn roof. One of the men that he had employed to carry out work on the roof, Mr David Clark, was crawling on a board adjacent to the barn when the roof that the board was balancing on collapsed, sending him plummeting to the ground. Mr Clark suffered serious injuries to his spine and ribs as a result. After the accident he was unable to return to work for almost two months and has subsequently changed careers. It is not known whether Mr Clark has claimed or will claim personal injury against his previous employer for his injuries.

The Health and Safety Executive was notified of the worksite accident after it occurred on 14 December 2011. An investigation was subsequently carried out and this investigation found that Mr Fry had failed to put in place a number of health and safety requirements. For example, whilst the job was being undertaken the mobile elevated work platform developed a problem, making it impossible to access the roof using this machine, and this meant that the workers had to rely on using a couple of crawl boards to crawl from the roof of an adjacent building to the barn to repair the roof. However, the adjacent building had a fragile asbestos cement roof, which gave way when Mr Clark was standing on it, causing his injuries. The Health and Safety Executive therefore recommended that a prosecution of Mr Fry be commenced for his breaches of health and safety regulations.

The matter came before the Weymouth Magistrates’ Court on 3 July 2013. The court heard how the HSE investigation had exposed a number of shortcomings with the work on the farm site, including a lack of edge protection around the roof, the necessity for workers to walk across a fragile roof to reach their workplace, and a lack of staging to spread the load (among other things).

Mr Fry pleaded guilty to a breach of Regulation 4(1)(c) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. He was therefore found guilty and fined £2,000 for breaching the regulations. He was also ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs of £9,440.

HSE inspector James Powell commented on the case that: “In this case, the work had not been properly planned. Mr Clark and fellow employees were working on a fragile roof and yet Michael Fry had neglected to implement basic safety measures to protect them and minimise the risks of falls.”

Marc Hadrill, solicitor at Redmans employment solicitors, gave the following comments on the case: “Even contractors with limited resources have to comply with the law when it comes to making sure that the health and safety of their workers isn’t compromised by poor working practices.”

Redmans Solicitors are unfair dismissal solicitors based in London.

Hip implants – new studies show women and those with all metal hip implants are particularly vulnerable

Why do patients with all-metal hip implants experience more pain? The DePuy ASR and Pinnacle hip implants manufactured by American healthcare colossus Johnson & Johnson have caused great controversy in light of their remarkably high failure rates – which led to a worldwide recall of approximately 93,000 ASR implants back in 2010. Concern has been growing over the health problems caused by the metal components of the implants wearing down. However a new study from the Orthopaedic Biomechanics at the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) suggests that it is in fact tissue damage that causes patients the most pain.

Although the all-metal implants were originally marketed as more durable alternatives to similar ceramic devices available, they have been found to fail prematurely at an alarming rate – requiring many patients to have revision surgeries to replace the defective devices. The HSS study looked at 50 patients whose hip implant revision surgery was scheduled in light of unexplained pain, against 48 other patients whose second hip replacement operation became necessary as a result of infection, bone fracture, misalignment or loosening of the implant.

Scientists looked for evidence that tissue had been damaged by metallic shards from the implant. The severity of the damage caused was then given a score between 1 and 10. They discovered that 3 in every 5 patients with unexplained pain scored at least 5 on the tissue damage scale and that over 1 in 10 across both categories suffered from metallic debris collecting in their soft tissues. Amongst those with unexplained pain, there were 10 times as many with high grade tissue damage as in the other category.

Despite being warned as early as 2005 that there were serious problems with the ASR devices, DePuy did not recall the products until 2010. The company is now facing 10,750 lawsuits as a result and damages payouts are expected to cost parent company Johnson & Johnson billions of dollars.

Furthermore, according to a FDA funded study, it appears that women are at a greater risk of experiencing premature hip implant failure than men. The study comes at a controversial time for hip implant manufacturers with companies such as DePuy and Stryker having issued recalls of metal-on-metal hip devices amid reports of high failure rates – and with DePuy, in particular, already having lost one of the test cases arising out of the hip replacement recall scandal.

The FDA funded study drew upon data from 35,000 hip replacement patients and revealed a series of interesting findings. Most strikingly, women are 29% more likely to suffer from a failed implant than men, requiring many more women to go through the pain and trauma of a follow-up or ‘revision’ surgery in order to have their hip implant removed and replaced.

The study also found that more men receive all-metal hip devices such as the DePuy ASR implants which were subject to a global recall in 2010. Whilst the gender comparisons are interesting, there is little explanation as to why such differences exist.

Recipients of metal-on-metal hip implants in particular have complained of a whole range of health problems in recent years. Joint dislocations, bone loss, metallosis, implant loosening and tissue damage have all been cited in various lawsuits. One of the biggest concerns is metallosis, which is a severe form of metal poisoning thought to be caused by cobalt and chromium fragments flecking off the hip device as metal components grind together; a particular problem in ASR implants.

Following the high number of complaints, the FDA issued new guidelines for all-metal implants at the start of 2013. Doctors have been told to avoid the devices where possible and manufacturers will need to carry out much more extensive testing to demonstrate that new products meet the required safety standards.

Despite being warned as early as 2005 that there were serious problems with the ASR devices, DePuy did not recall the products until 2010. The company is now facing 10,750 lawsuits as a result and damages payouts are expected to cost parent company Johnson & Johnson billions of dollars.

If you have been the victim of the hip replacement recall scandal in England and Wales, then you could be entitled to make a claim for medical negligence compensation in respect of your pain and suffering.

Tim Bishop, senior partner of Bonallack and Bishop – Solicitors with a specialist team of medical negligence experts. For more information about how to claim medical negligence compensation, visit the website at http://www.themedicalnegligencesolicitor.co.uk or phone their medical negligence solicitors directly on 01722 422300.

Legal Aid Cuts – What You Need to Know

New legal aid reforms proposed by the government in early June have been met with outrage by barristers, defendants and human rights organisations. The plans are one of a number of reforms, such as the recent Jackson Reforms introduced in April 2013, which have been proposed to cut the cost of legal services in the UK.

The plans propose to introduce a price competitive tendering system where law firms will tender to represent defendants, no longer allowing defendants with legal aid to choose a solicitor themselves. The new system is based purely on money and not suitability which means that defendants won’t be able to choose the most suitable legal expert to deal with their case, which can be a particular issue for complicated cases such as fraud.

Since the news broke of the proposed plans, many people have spoken out against them. Maura McGowan QC, chairwoman of the Bar Council, said: “There is no avoiding the simple fact that these proposals would move us from having a justice system which is admired all over the world, to a system where price trumps all.”

The Bar Council, the body which represents barristers in England and Wales, has also condemned the government’s plans as potentially “damaging the British justice system, which is renowned worldwide for fairness and impartiality“. So it’s not just vulnerable people who could be affected by the reforms but the image of the British justice system could be tarnished.
Below is a guide outlining the facts on the legal aid reforms and who the changes will have an impact on.

Impact on defendants

• Defendants receiving legal aid will not be able to choose their solicitor.
• People receiving legal aid tend to be some of the most vulnerable groups in society including immigrants, ethnic minorities, homeless people and vulnerable women. Many of the people affected by the legal aid reforms have common social welfare issues including redundancy, housing issues and debt. The new plans will mean these groups of people will have their legal support limited.
• Defendants who require very specific advice may not get a fair trial as they may not have access to a specialist solicitor.
• Defendants in prison would have their legal aid limited to only parole and disciplinary hearings dealt with by magistrates. This would mean that prisoner’s rights such as living conditions, treatment and family rights could be compromised as prisoners won’t have access to the legal aid needed to fund a case.

Impact on solicitors

• Solicitors’ fees will be cut to enable firms to compete for the bids.
• Contracts will be awarded through tendering rather than which solicitor is best suited to the case.
• Smaller legal firms might not be able to compete with larger firms in the tendering process as the danger is that large corporate firms will start to offer legal aid services, and use their size to underbid smaller, specialist companies.
• The reforms will put pressure on specialist firms who deal with very specific cases and therefore hinder diversity across the legal profession.

Impact it could have on you

Legal aid cuts don’t just affect society’s vulnerable people, they could have an impact anyone. It may be that you’ve never needed legal help in the past but legal trouble could be just around the corner. For example, you could be charged with a driving offense, charged with assault when acting in self-defence, injured in an accident which wasn’t your fault or wrongly accused of a crime you didn’t commit. If this was to happen under the government’s proposals then you wouldn’t be able to choose the best solicitor for your circumstances, or a solicitor you trust, you would be allocated with an ‘all round’ solicitor who might not have the specific expertise to handle your case.

What next?

The Bar Council has approached Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, and asked him to ensure the decision he reaches is “a fully informed one.” The government’s response to the ongoing consultation between the Bar Council and the Ministry of Justice will be published in autumn.

Richard Meggitt is a partner in the specialist personal injury firm, ASD, which is based in Sheffield in the UK. ASD was established in 1984 and are a firm of qualified and experienced personal injury solicitors.

How to claim compensation following a military injury

If you sustain an injury during service in the United Kingdom Armed Forces, there are two avenues which you can follow in order to claim compensation.

Most commonly, military personnel choose to instruct a specialist accident claim solicitor and make a personal injury in the same way as a civilian through the county court. However, some choose to make use of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS), an initiative which was introduced to replace the War Pensions Scheme back in 2005. Through the AFCS, members of the Armed Forces (or family members claiming on their behalf) are able to make ‘no fault’ compensation claims following injuries sustained in service.

Armed Forces Compensation Scheme – its limitations

The purpose of the scheme was to reduce the number of military injury claims going through the already congested county courts – and to this end, the scheme can be judged largely to have been a success. However, there are major flaws with the scheme, the most notable of which is that military personnel are unlikely to receive the maximum amount of compensation they are entitled to and are which they are more likely to receive by making a compensation claim in the county court. The AFCS uses an inflexible 15-point scale to classify injuries, which means that the individual circumstances of a military injury are not taken into account when determining the size of the payout. Therefore, despite the fact that a comprehensive range of injuries of varying seriousness are recognised by the scheme, the compensation payouts are formulaic and often insufficient.

Perhaps the clearest indicator of the very real limitations of the AFCS is the £570,000 claims ceiling. No matter how serious the injuries are, the AFCS will never pay out more than this figure, and considering that compensation for the most serious accidents heard in the county court can result in seven-figure payouts, this limit can mean compensation payments are very meagre indeed. It seems as though crucial considerations are being overlooked by the AFCS such as loss of earnings due to forced retirement, loss of pension entitlement, the cost of adapting living quarters and the cost of medical treatment. Payments for these kind of losses or expenses are accounted for in any county court injury claim payout.

One of, if not the only, advantages the AFCS has over making a claim in a civilian court, is that it does allow claimants up to 7 years in which to file a claim – in contrast to which county courts have a strictly enforced. three-year limitation period, after which time, unless there are exceptional circumstances, any accident victim will lose their right to make a compensation claim entirely. Even here however, there can be a problem with the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme – in practice, it appears that Armed Forces members are often are told by the military that they have 7 years in which to make their claim, which is, of course ,true in so far as it relates to any claim made under the AFCS, only to discover that the county court deadline has passed in that time.

Tim Bishop senior partner of Bonallack and Bishop – specialist solicitors with expertise in military medical negligence and injury claims. Call them on 01722 422300 or for more information visit their specialist website at http://military-lawyer.co.uk

 

.

Healthcare Shortcomings in the USA

It is a common belief that because the United States spends by far the most per capita on health services that it must also be providing the highest quality of care. However, in looking at comparative health data this appears to only be sporadically true. The United States has an infant mortality rate of 6.7 percent, which is significantly higher than the OECD average of 4.7. It’s also middle of the pack in life expectancy (28th in the world, at 78.2 years), trailing far behind countries like Japan (86.4 years) that spend about a third as much as the U.S. per capita. In terms of access, the United States is the only OECD country that has a significant population that has been left uncovered by the healthcare system. Staffing is another measure where the United States lags behind the OECD average, with 2.7 physicians per 1,000 people; the OECD average is 3.1, and 8.1 nurses per 1,000 people, trailing the OECD average of 9.0.

System Inefficiency tied to Crippling Administrative Costs

A primary factor in the rise of healthcare costs has been escalating financial inefficiency in the form of extraordinarily high administrative expenses in both the private and public sectors. A Harvard study conducted in 1999 found that healthcare costs associated with administration were $294.3 billion and equated to $1,059 per capita in the United States. It’s important to remember that these aren’t costs for providing actual medical care, but rather the bureaucratic processes involved in maintaining the system. Overhead costs, particularly in the private insurance sector, made up a sizable percentage of overall administrative costs.

In 1999 for instance, private insurance entities spent 11.7 percent of total premiums collected on administrative overhead, compared with Medicare (3.6 percent) and Medicaid (6.8 percent). Hospital administration also accounted for a significant percentage of total costs at $315 per capita.

In order to put the high level of these costs into context the study compared the data with that from equivalent sectors in the Canadian healthcare system. The administrative costs in the United States were consistently much higher than those in Canada, especially when considered at a per capita level. Total administrative costs were $1,059 per capita, compared to only $307 in the Canadian system. It’s important to note that Canada operates under a publicly funded national health system, whose uniformity effectively cuts out much of the bureaucracy and allows for the elimination of many of the administrative expenses present in the public/private system.

Rise of Medical Malpractice Awards and Insurance

One of the primary concerns both inside and outside of the health industry in recent years has been the increase in the amount physicians are required to pay for malpractice insurance and an associated reduction in the workforce. This has mirrored a general rise in the number of annual malpractice lawsuits over the past 50 years in the United States. Data presented in the Journal of Health Affairs indicated an increase from 1.5 suits per 100 physicians in 1956 to 15 lawsuits per 100 physicians in 1990.

The average amount of damages paid has also risen dramatically moving from $154,000 in 1991 to $291,000 by 2003. In an effort to combat this trend, 38 states have adopted policies that place a cap on the maximum amount of damages that may be awarded. Typical limits are $250,000 for suits against individual physicians and $500,000 for those involving hospitals or clinics.

Byline: Frank Anderson writes on everything health-related from Medical Equipment Fraud to health insurance law.