The Legal Examiner Affiliate Network The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner search feed instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner
Skip to main content
| Wayne Parsons Law Offices

Facts are Stubborn things

Does saying something is a fact make it one? From the context of this essay supporting tort reform, Dr. Russell Turk appears to believe so. In his essay, Dr. Turk makes a number of claims. His support for these claims is a mixture of equal parts empirical evidence, anecdotal evidence, and contempt for anyone who is not a doctor. None of the assertions he presents as fact is nearly so clear as he would have us believe. Let’s examine two of these claims, and see how his certainty holds up.

His first claim is that liability increases medical malpractice insurance premiums. He offers little support for this claim however apart from the statements that premiums are high and that many doctors get sued. For this claim to be true either the total number of tort claims must have increased or the awards in individual judgments must have radically increased. If an increase in damage awards were responsible, one would expect to see lower payouts and commensurately lower premiums in states that have statutorily capped such payouts. So, have we seen an explosion in tort claims or lower premiums in capped states? The short answer is no, we have not.

A study of malpractice claims in Texas 1988-2002 found after controlling for inflation and population growth that there had been a decline in the number of small claims (under $25,000) and that the number of large claims had remained roughly constant. (Bernard S. Black 2005). Moreover, the amounts of those paid claims only increased by 0.8-1.2 percent per year. Id.

As for the effects of capped non-economic damages, one national study found that while payouts did decline in the nineteen states that then had caps, premiums in capped states rose far faster than those in uncapped states. (Martin D. Weiss 2003) In states with statutory caps, the median annual premium increased 48.2%, while those states without caps saw a median increase of only 35.9%. Id. This suggests that while something is driving premiums higher, it isn’t malpractice claims. More recent studies show exactly the same findings.

In short, there is no evidence of an explosion in either the number of tort claims or the size of judgments. It is possible that Dr. Turk has empirical evidence that contradicts the findings of these surveys. However, as he has declined to provide any of it, we must dismiss his claim.

Dr. Turk’s second claim is that medical malpractice liability causes doctors to practice “defensive medicine” which drives up the overall costs of healthcare. His evidence for this contention consists of several anecdotes concerning patients who did not take his advice, an anecdote about an attorney, and an assertion that the rate at which doctors perform cesarean sections has skyrocketed due to liability concern. The anecdotal data is unfalsifiable, and thus worthless. He provides no evidence that defensive medicine causes an increase in c-sections, apart from his assertion. Let us examine the most empirical of his claims and see what truth, if any, it holds.

Perhaps the most common claim about defensive medicine is that it leads to massive increases in medically unnecessary cesarean sections. Dr. Turk claims that the cesarean rate in Connecticut now exceeds forty percent. He provides no citation for this. Nor does he tell us what the rate was previously, making it difficult to calculate the increase. What research I have found however, suggests his claim is simply false. This study, from 2000, finds the rate of births by primary cesarean section in Connecticut to be 12.4 percent.

In any event, what research that has been done on this question suggests that while there may have been an increase in c-sections due to liability risk, the increase has been miniscule. One estimate suggests that a sixty percent reduction in physician premiums would cause the cesarean section rate to decline 0.48 percent. (Lisa Dubay 1999) Moreover, while cesarean rates have increased, they have done so worldwide. Rates have increased even in New Zealand, a nation in which the state provides all healthcare, and which has eliminated its tort system entirely. Without better evidentiary support than Dr. Turk has provided thus far, this claim must also be dismissed.

It is clear that that the amount of money Americans spend on healthcare is increasing. There are any number of explanations for this, some more or less convincing than others. It is further clear that Americans feel they spend too much on healthcare and are searching for policy alternatives that will reduce those costs without worsening the quality of care. It is difficult to disagree with any of that. However, as we assess policy choices we need to do it in light of facts, not demagoguery or scare-mongering. Dr. Turk clearly has a strong set of policy preferences. It is difficult however, to assess the facts on which they are based, as he simply does not provide any.

Works Cited:

Bernard S. Black, Charles Silver, David A. Hyman, William M. Sage. "Stability, Not Crisis: Medical Malpractice Claim Outcomes in Texas, 1988-2002." 2 J. Empirical Legal Studies, 2005: 207.

Lisa Dubay, Robert Kaestner, Timothy Waidman. "The impact of malpractice fears on cesarean section rates." 18 J. of Health Economics, 1999: 491.

Martin D. Weiss, Melissa Gannon, Stephanie Eakins. edical Malpractice Caps: The Impact of Non-Economic Damage Caps on Physician Premiums, Claims Payout Levels, and Availability of Coverage. Weiss Ratings, Inc., 2003.


  1. Gravatar for Mike Bryant
    Mike Bryant

    All very good points, they have no support for their frivolous claims.

  2. Gravatar for Lily Beck
    Lily Beck

    Mr. Parsons, I hate to tell you that, in citing a 12% rate of primary cesareans in Connecticut in 2000 as the basis for dismissing a claim that cesarean section rates are rising dramatically, you appear to know nothing about the subject. First of all, primary cesarean rates are those for first-time mothers and the rate does not include repeat cesareans, which contribute significantly to the increasing overall cesarean rate due to the legal climate regarding vaginal birth after cesarean (for more information about hospitals banning VBACs due to legal concerns, visit

    Second of all, birth statistics are easily available to the general public via the CDC website, with the newest release available here: . "The cesarean delivery rate rose 2 percent in 2007, to 31.8 percent, marking the 11th consecutive year of increase and another record high for the United States." If you look for yourself, you will also see a graph that depicts the trend quite clearly.

    Third, Connecticut's cesarean rate was 34.6% in 2007 (CDC preliminary data). That's quite different from your cherry-picked data for 2000.

  3. Wayne Parsons

    Thanks for the added information. I will look into those sources that you refer to and post another Blog on this subject. I am interested in your data and getting better educated on the C-section facts. As gar as the legal climate I do know that in Hawaii there are virtually no lawsuits against doctors and from my friends who are doctors they tell me that their main concern in delivering babies is protecting the mother's health and the baby's health. I don't hear the defensive medicine complaints except from the insurance industry and the doctors' lobbyists who want to protect a few negligent doctors from paying for the harm they do. It seems to me that there are 2 voices in the medical community on defensive medicine regardless of how many C-sections are being done. I'd enjoy seeing your response or a response from a doctor and a delivery nurse.

  4. Mark Bello

    Ms. Beck: Whether Mr. Parsons is correct or incorrect about the trends or frequency of c-sections, there is one true "fact" about "lawsuit abuse" and that is that it is a myth. "Lawsuit abuse" is an false premise attempt to paint all lawsuits as "frivolous" so that legislative bodies can place a damage cap on serious ones. This denies justice to serious injury victims and transfers responsibility for damages from the private sector (private insurance) to the public sector in the form of welfare, medicare, medicaid and other public assistance. This is, essentially, welfare for insurance companies (who, by the way, invested the concept of "lawsuit absuse"). Do you support this concept?

Comments are closed.