Over the past six years, First Court has been asking mock jurors to rate United States doctors’ intentions behind their treatments, tests, or procedures, particularly gauging if they believed doctors performed them unnecessarily for their own financial gain. With four different answer choices of “No, definitely not,” “No, probably not,” “Yes, probably,” and “Yes, definitely,” seventy-four percent of jurors believed doctors either “probably” or “definitely” performed unnecessary treatments, tests, or procedures, in part, because it makes them money.
This question was asked in twenty-eight mock trials nationwide to evaluate jurors’ distrust and skepticism of extreme damages claims in personal injury cases backed by the plaintiff’s retained doctors. A total of six hundred and eighty-two jurors were analyzed in this study, and almost three-fourths of them were unwilling to accept that all treatments, tests, or procedures doctors encouraged were necessary and not for financial gain. There is a skepticism of a doctor’s profit motive amongst jurors, and they are open to believing that doctors may be participating in a trial as a collaborative effort with plaintiff’s attorneys for their own financial benefit. Jurors stated that:
"I feel like they look for things that aren’t wrong to make extra money."
"There is a pressure on doctors to bill just as lawyer."
"I've heard stories about doctors trying to pressure patients into signing medical procedures."
"I say yes, because an attorney wanted me to have surgery.”
“My prior doctor in Oakland did this and lost his license."
“I have dealt with doctors who have tried to prescribe pills to me for things I don't need.”
Generally, First Court has seen in our mock trials that jurors want injured plaintiffs to receive their full legitimate medical bills in compensation, but they are also willing to be skeptical of exaggerated medical bills if there are legitimate reasons to believe the system is being abused and if they understand the relevant complexities involved in the medical billing issues. Explaining the medical billing inflation simply in a way that can be easily understood by a layperson is key.
There is also a growing trend of defendant's in personal injury cases fighting back against inflated personal injury medical bills, including even counter-suing Plaintiffs and their law firms and medical providers with RICO claims. These defense teams are stepping into the role of the plaintiff and claiming that some injured parties and their attorneys have been exaggerating injuries and have been receiving unnecessary medical treatments at hugely inflated rates to drive up the cost of claimed damages in lawsuits.
In one specific case, Uber has alleged that a plaintiff suing it in a car accident case conspired with the plaintiff's treating doctors and attorneys to turn an ordinary accident into a life-altering injury claim against Uber with its high-limit insurance. Uber has since claimed that cases against them have been built on fraudulent allegations and are an act of abuse, for which it has counter-sued.
The fraudulent allegations are connected to the “artificially inflated medical bills” that “lawyers have conspired with medical providers” to submit in order to expand the medical expenses plaintiffs can claim. Justia Legal News specifically states that “several defendants operated a scheme in which personal injury attorneys directed clients to pre-selected medical providers who performed unnecessary treatments and then submitted artificially inflated bills.” Uber highlights specific procedures that have been performed by fraudulent doctors, including spinal injections and radio frequency ablations, as a basis for their claim.
Uber spokesperson Adam Blinick wrote that this harms real victims and decreases the public’s trust, which is congruent with First Court’s findings about baseline skepticism of doctors and the medical system among jurors today.
This distrust has practical consequences for the plaintiff. Jurors may discount or disbelieve testimony from retained experts, give more weight to opposing or neutral evidence, and adopt a default skepticism that requires stronger corroboration before awarding large damages.
As a defense attorney, do not be afraid to pursue medical bias claims and test them in discovery. Specialized discovery techniques into the relationships and financial agreements between Plaintiff's attorneys and medical providers require extra effort, but they can be pay off for the defense by motivating more reasonable settlements and developing new arguments to fight against inflated claims if a case goes to a jury trial.
Resources
https://getinjurylawyer.com/uber-files-rico-lawsuit-alleging-fraudulent-injury-claims-by-plaintiff-firms/