tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4968787219619380438.post6833680560607927288..comments2023-09-21T04:02:29.457-04:00Comments on Skeptical Scalpel: Electronic Medical Records: New Opportunities for Plaintiffs’ LawyersSkeptical Scalpelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13206922456661320751noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4968787219619380438.post-32140240489499558482012-04-05T12:17:40.974-04:002012-04-05T12:17:40.974-04:00Joseph: I appreciate the comments. Good point abou...Joseph: I appreciate the comments. Good point about another reason to name many defendants.Skeptical Scalpelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13206922456661320751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4968787219619380438.post-59325800129870758432012-04-05T11:27:29.977-04:002012-04-05T11:27:29.977-04:00A legitimate concern. This is another example of ...A legitimate concern. This is another example of the tension between seeking the benefits of innovation, on one hand, and avoiding additional liability exposure, on the other. Our tort system tends to chill innovation. The test of malpractice is the conduct of other practitioners in similar circumstances. Almost by definition, an innovation is a departure from current practice. Society's concerns with the costs of defensive medicine are well-founded. A cost that gets too little consideration, however, is the cost of innovations delayed or abandoned.<br /><br />Another potential advantage to plaintiff of naming multiple parties defendant, BTW, is that one or more might settle pre-trial. The funds so raised can then finance the trial, including the costs of expert fees.<br /><br />Joe McMenaminJoseph P. McMenaminhttp://www.mcguirewoods.com/lawyers/index/Joseph_P_McMenamin.aspnoreply@blogger.com