COVID-era pandemic protection law put to the test in Indiana
An Indiana law that offered protections for health care responders and facilities confronting the COVID-19 pandemic was tested earlier this month, as a challenge was mounted following an adverse outcome that occurred in the chaos of the initial outbreak.
This case, Fluhr v. Anonymous Doctor 1 et al., heard by the state’s appellate court, sought to invalidate Indiana’s 2021 law establishing that physicians, hospitals and other health professionals cannot be held liable for an act, omission or delay relating to emergency medical services arising from the state disaster emergency declared in response to COVID-19.
Those named in the lawsuit acknowledged that more comprehensive testing may have led to a different result for the patient in question. But they recalled difficult circumstances when health care providers were operating under protocols stemming from the public health emergency declaration, while simultaneously confronting workforce shortages, inadequate safety supplies, and changing guidance.
“That’s a time I think we would prefer to forget. But with that backdrop, the brief explained to the courts that the exact reason for the statute was to prevent us from second guessing in 2024 the extreme measures that we had to take to protect our patients, our workforce, and society in 2020,” said Elizabeth Struble, MD, a family physician who is past president of the Indiana State Medical Association and chairs its legislation committee.
Even care for patients without confirmed or suspected COVID-19 was impacted during the pandemic.
“The COVID-19 immunity statute represents the General Assembly’s sound legislative judgment that health care providers should not be subject to civil liability, based on conventional standards of care, for how they render medical services under crisis conditions,” the AMA Litigation Center and the Indiana State Medical Association stated in their brief.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals of Indiana upheld the initial decision, ruling that the providers were entitled to immunity carved out under the 2021 law.
To read more about the continued risks pandemic providers face as protection statutes are challenged years later in court, click here.
New Jersey court relaxes liability standards, risking lawsuit abuse
The New Jersey Supreme Court has made a significant decision that would expand the likelihood of medical lawsuit abuse in the state, ruling that patients can now file complaints without an expert reviewing their medical records beforehand.
Prior precedent of New Jersey’s liability lawsuits required a third-party affidavit of merit (AOM), with a plaintiff’s expert certifying they reviewed medical records before assessing the complaint’s validity. However, a recent ruling clarified that the state’s AOM statute doesn’t explicitly mandate such a review. Justice Lee A. Solomon, speaking for the court, emphasized this point, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with a liability lawsuit despite incomplete medical records at the time of filing.
“Given that the AOM statute does not make any reference to the review of medical records, we conclude that affiants are not required to state that they reviewed the medical records of the injured party,” Justice Lee A. Solomon wrote for the unanimous court.
This ruling will likely impact healthcare providers and patients in New Jersey, influencing how liability claims are handled and opening new avenues for liability lawsuits.
To read more about how the ruling marks a significant development in state liability law, to the detriment of patients and physicians, click here.
An orthopedic program that healed legal woes
In a remarkable effort to enhance patient care and reduce legal risks, a study of a large orthopedic practice detailed how it implemented the Patient Advocacy Reporting System (PARS), resulting in positive results for health care providers and patients alike.
A study in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery analyzed how PARS, an innovative program that identifies clinicians at higher risk for patient complaints, employs a tiered intervention model to address and mitigate these concerns. Initiated by Vanderbilt University Medical Center, PARS relies on patient feedback to pinpoint practitioners with disproportionately high complaint rates.
From 2004 to 2020, this orthopedic group saw significant benefits to patient care and improved outcomes.
“The implementation of PARS was associated with an 83% reduction in liability claims’ cost per high-risk clinician after intervention,” the study reports. “The overall practice group experienced an 87% reduction in mean annual claims cost per clinician.”
By proactively addressing patient complaints and enhancing communication, the PARS program also helps to reduce the incidence of medical liability lawsuits. Early intervention and accountability prevent issues from escalating to litigation, saving both time and resources. This proactive approach not only cuts costs, but also improves patient satisfaction and trust.
As state and federal policymakers look at innovative ways to reduce medical lawsuit abuse and increase patient access to care, the PARS program’s focus on both system design and individual behavior demonstrates how targeted interventions can lead to substantial improvements in clinical practice and financial outcomes.
Click here to read more about how PARS and similar programs offer a blueprint for reducing risks of adverse outcomes, minimizing medical liability lawsuits, and improving patient care.