Our item yesterday on the scarcity of neurosurgeons in Florida following that state's passage of a trial-lawyer-backed "three strikes" measure (providing for the yanking of doctors' license to practice if they lose three malpractice suits) drew the following response from one correspondent:
Thank you so much for that post. I am one of the many physicians in Florida who left as a result of the new provision. Many of us had started practice in Florida hoping that reforms would occur and instead it became worse. After the "three strikes" policy was voted in, many of us chose to leave. The simple reason was this. In our town one of our cardiologists on call took care of three acute heart attacks. All went to the cath lab and had excellent outcomes. A local attorney contacted the patients and told them that they should have been in the cath lab sooner and advised them to file suit as they "might not know how much heart they lost". The attorney then told the cardiologist that he should immediately settle the cases as he could not risk a decision against him because of "three strikes". The cardiologist decided enough was enough and quit medicine. The same tactic was then used against a general surgeon and our only remaining neurosurgeon.
This opened the door to every bogus lawsuit possible. With the sense that we all had bulls-eyes on our back, we left.
Our correspondent asks not to be named "since I still am paying a huge tail insurance for having practiced in Florida".