Malpractice Books

This is a very brief overview of what happens when you, the physician (or you, the nurse, the PA, nurse practitioner, or whatever) is sued for medical malpractice. It doesn't take much of your time to read this book, but there are some real eye-openers in it. I recommend reading it before you ever look a process server in the eye--and hopefully that never happens. Unfortunately, too often it does. I speak as an RN with 20 years' experience.

This book points out the basic sins of management: lack of trust, short-term gains, mistreatment of employees, etc. There are some interesting points made, and the author does a good job of presenting them. However, this book focuses on pointing out obvious facts rather than giving specifics. Which is fine, if that was his purpose.

A lot of areas were repetitious, saying managers put short-term over long-term, lack a vision, and lack integrity. Then, at the end, the author says we need managers with a vision and integrity and all the rest.

Overall, this was a well written book (with a very insightful Preface making the case for litigation) that is good for beginners to read. The book will probably be of no help to businesspeople, though, because it lacks specifics and is vague.

This is one of my favorite authors but not one of his best books. This is a Jack Stapleton novel. Recently, Cook's books have become arrogant and pompous -written as if you have to be a medical professional to understand them. Someone is spreading the MRSA bacteria at several hospitals. Jack and Laurie must find out whom. If you have a medical background or like books with a technical medical component, read it. If not, skip this one. I am a mircobiologust and even I got lost in th emumbo jumbo of this book sometimes!

I usually prefer reading non-fiction, but this time I was in the mood of a relaxing, non-stressful, easy and entertaining reading. I like stories where I can learn something, and thought this medical thriller will increase my knowledge of the medical world.

I did learn new things about the state of a body during exhumation. Apparently, as long as no humidity or water enters the coffin, the body will be perfectly preserved. For this reason, people pay top dollar for air tight coffins. But who really wants to have his body preserved? The Egyptian Pharaohs ended up in museums.

There were some interesting information about autopsies; doctor concierge service; and especially about lawyers, and how important it is for them to relate with the jury. You know what is the difference between a prostitute and a lawyer? A prostitute stops screwing you after you are dead! (I don't want to be vulgar, but this joke is mentioned in the book). One interesting fact I learnt is that a woman never commits suicide while naked. Unbeknownst to me, a woman likes to look good when her body is found!

The story is about a malpractice suit. A patient dies of a heart attack, and her family doctor is sued. Most of the story takes place in the courtroom, and shows you how nasty lawyers can be. The story will also give you a glimpse into the life of doctors in general.

There is a twist at the end of the story, but I felt it was a little exaggerated. This is more a TV style story than a really captivating novel. I found myself just wanting to finish the book out of curiosity of how it will end. Though the end was not anticipated, it still did not offer an extraordinary twist.

Like so many others, I have been a fan since "Coma" was published. But, believe me, this is no "Coma," though at times I felt as if I were drifting into one reading it. Characters and situations, which start out with promise, quickly become unreal and boring cardboard constructions. Conversations among intimates sound computer-generated, lacking any verisimilitude. It doesn't take much time to see that every situation is being stretched and milked to the limit, with lots of tangential descriptions, asides, and inconsequential actions that add nothing to plot or mood.

Dr. Craig Bowman's frustration and depression at having his competence challenged are mentioned in detail so frequently that I wanted to scream. And what was this implied mob-connection via personal injury lawyer Tony Fasano? Did he arrange the terrorizing of the Bowmans? Does anybody really care? It was unnecessarily introduced then dropped flat.

Several times names are incorrectly applied, substituting Craig for Jack. Laurie comes off as a one-dimensional, unsympathetic nag. Boo hiss. Jack makes incredible statements, like days before his wedding he says he can't drive from Boston to NYC if he can't get a flight back home early in the morning. Say what? After making his way around the Boston area streets for days, he can certainly drive the four hours back to NYC via the interstate if necessary, even after the autopsy in the middle of the night. Furthermore, adding to incredulity, Jack doesn't seem to really recognize Craig later because Craig has dyed his hair dark. Now I really believe that.

The courtroom scenes should have been left to John Grisham. Talk about boring. At the end things are left hanging. Exactly why did Craig commit the murder (because Patience was a hypochondriac?) and exactly how did he introduce the poison? Since Cook spends so much time on the microbiology, it might have been nice to follow through and explain Craig's process as well as his thinking about it.

The book ends hurriedly with Jack solving the puzzle, racing home, barely making it to his wedding after a series of anti-climactic time-wasting difficulties. All wrapped up in a hastily tied, pretty pink ribbon.

In good conscience I can't recommend this book to anyone unless he or she is in need of a sedative.

Robin Cook's books tend to be quick-read medical thrillers that follow the same basic formula. Which is not always a bad thing -- people like what's familiar.

Generally, I do enjoy these formulaic stories; however, this book proved to be an exception. It did follow the formula, but Cook and his editor seemed to have forgotten to actually tie up all the loose ends before the last page. I won't be too much of a spoiler, but in the beginning the narration claims that these two bodies hundreds of miles apart, will ultimately be related. I'm not saying that they aren't related, just that it was never fully revealed how. Also, the plot took a severe turn in the last few pages -- and didn't follow up. There was no explaination.

If you could cut out the very beginning, and then again the very end, the middle of the story managed to be a decent tale. As long as you can ignore the occasional dangerously cliche end-of-chapter sentences.

That said, I'm not sorry I took the time to read it, but I am glad that I only paid $.01 for it (plus S&H).

Robin Cook is the grand-daddy of the medical thriller, but in Crisis he veers into the arena of the legal thriller, and not with the best effect. This book has some problems, particularly in the plotting.

Quick facts of the case: Dr. Craig Bowman is being sued for medical malpractice after he made a house call to a "problem patient" who was apparently dying of a heart attack, rather than directing her husband to call an ambulance. On trial we have Dr. Bowman AND his style of practice, known as "concierge medicine," in which wealthy patients pay a large annual fee for personalized attention from their internist. Dr. Bowman's wife calls her brother for help with the trial; her brother is New York medical examiner Jack Singleton, known to readers from several of Cook's earlier books.

Singleton wants to exhume the body and perform an autopsy. He and the Bowman daughters are attacked and threatened to warn him off, presumably at the bidding of the attorney for the deceased's husband.

The book would benefit from decisive editing as it's much too long, with interminable courtroom dialogue and MUCH more Boston driving hassles than anyone needs. Another significant problem is that the characters (as usual with this author) often behave in ways that seem unreasonable. Dr. Singleton, for example, is pressing against a deadline: his own wedding to his colleague Dr. Laurie Montgomery. Will he make the wedding? Does he want to? The suspense of that situation is overdone and distracting.

But the biggest problem is the ending, which is totally unsupported by the rest of the book and which viciously orphans several plot elements. Who really tried to prevent the autopsy, and why? This major story line is dropped like a hot potato. Why was Dr. Bowman crazy enough to do what he apparently did, and why didn't his psychologist wife have a clue? We'll never know. And *** POSSIBLE SPOILER HERE ** how could it possibly happen that Jack looks directly into a man's eyes and isn't sure whether it's his brother-in-law or not? I want some of that hair dye!

I had the feeling this COULD have been a good book except for the inadequate editing and the "lucky dip" ending; there were many threads that showed promise though they were left dangling. I listened to it on CD and the reading by George Guidall was very effective, though the indexing was at too-long intervals. If I'd had paper in my hands I'd have flipped through the dragged-out bits -- and probably enjoyed it less overall. Being a "process reader" rather than just looking for the plot outcome, I found Crisis to be a three-star experience for me. If this lack of resolution ruins your own reading pleasure, then you may want to skip this one.

Linda Bulger, 2008

The Reader's Digest Condensed version of "Doctor on Trial" is smart, quick-paced and formulaic: a good read with sympathetic characters. I'm surprised to find no record of it as a movie or made for TV drama.

Dr. Forrester, an ER resident doctor, gets entangled in a legal nightmare involving a stereotypical fat cat in NYC politics. The technical side of the audiobook is excellent -- little repeats at the beginning of each side, clear identification of cassette and side etc. But the story is sadly out of sync with any reality. Stereotypes abound, the brave young idealistic life-saving doctor, rural background and all: But how in the world would a resident get sued with no attending physician involvement? Where in the world were the supervising docs in that ER set-up? How can a doctor be so smart in her field of study and be so dumb as to go on city TV to "defend her case" against lawyer's advice and without her hospital's permission? How would a lawyer and a young doctor be able to stand for hours in a downtown neighborhood observing a drug dealer close-up without being accosted? The lack of basic research by the author into the subject matter he writes about, the stenciled characters and the cliche-laden, dead prose style combined make this into about the worst example of pulp fiction imaginable. It is disheartening to see what the genre supports.

I'm innocent! The universal cry of all men (and women) on death row. Or, "ok, the evidence was videotaped and witnessed by six nuns, so NOW I'VE FOUND JESUS so don't kill me."

This man takes chutzpah to a new level. Everybody's soooo mean to him. Those nasty old prosecutors and cops who followed the evidence right to his smarmy door.

The man is guilty and turns and twists to hard to try to wiggle out that this book needs a chiropractor.

A sorry attempt to explain how he was "framed" for his wifes murder. Bad lawyers, lying cops, corrupt legal system. Yeah right! He is guilty as sin and deserves to be right where he is. This book is a waste.

If you have read the book Blind Faith you MUST read Tunnel Vision also. Robert Marshall gives you a look into the truth about his story. He tells you what really happened when his family was tragically torn apart by his wife's murder. In his book he is able to clear up many untruths that were published in the book Blind Faith. I was amazed at how "uninvolved" his trial lawyer was with his case. To Robert's great unfortune he had the wrong man defending his life. I HIGHLY recommend this book, it is well written and will give any reader great pause. I hope Robert finds the justice he deserves and is released from prison.

He, Jeffrey MacDonald, John Orr and Diane Downs should all be roomies.

It amazes me how murderers are allowed permitted to write books designed to paint themselves as "innocent."

I hope no one bought this!

An interesting book because of its author; a convicted murderer. Marshall and his late sister did a good job with the writing, but fail to answer too many questions. Why Marshall spent thousands supposedly hiring private investigators from Louisiana to check on missing money in his Harrah's account, something which is central to the story, is never really cleared up. Nor does he address why even his two eldest sons concluded that he was guilty -- not by itself proof of guilt, but worth wondering about. As literature and as debate material, ultimately disappointing.

So much duplication and jumping around! The story is compelling but the book tells it a hundred times in small passages then jumps to the court case. I had to put it down after getting half way through.

A Boston Globe reporter tells the story of the female psychiatrist accused of having sex with her male client. The client later ended up committing suicide. This story was splashed across the Boston headlines in the early 90's. The topic is interesting; but the book not very well written. The book is mostly concatenations of excerpts from legal documents, interviews, and process notes (the therapist's notes during her sessions with the patient.) Those process notes are fascinating., but this makes for choppy readings. The author considers the process notes to see whether they can reveal the true nature of the relationship between doctor and patient. The author argues -- fairly reasonably -- that there was no sexual relationship -- only fantasies. He also makes a convincing argument that the patient was suicidal long before he went into treatment with this psychiatrist. Unfortunately as the author defends the psychiatrist, he tends to be harshly critical of the patient and his family. The author's criticism borders on racist.

This writer has created a tome which has the potential to scare the living daylights of any therapist trying to work with clients . His focus on practicing defensively seems to overlook the obvious fact that such a posture taken with clients from the outset is oxymoronic. Clients come to therapists with the need and expectation of a therapeutic alliance. No one call ally themselves with an individual whose initial and ongoing posture is one of self-protection, defensiveness, and guardedness.

Hedges' comments regarding transference issues as the basis for complaints and his over-emphasis on these as the source of dissatisfaction in clients leads any knowledgeable reader to wonder to what extent his own strong countertransference issues related to clients of ANY kind are at work in his writing OR in his actual practice. His hostility toward clients and toward administrative/licensing boards is overt and interferes with his ability to provide balanced clarity in dealing with the issues he discusses.

In my opinion, any therapist who adopts his vantage point for approaching clients will soon have no clients. Clients have an intuitive sense regarding their therapists' perceptions of them. Being handed stacks of legal papers to sign and a myriad of other documents designed to protect the therapist (of course, under the guise of protecting both) at the outset of therapy precludes the possibility that any meaningful work will get done or any therapeutic alliance could be formed. Clients are not a stupid as he appears to suppose.

While the issue of practicing with common sense about legal and administrative issues is important, Hedges' approach focuses only on negative, confrontive, and overtly hostile interactions with clients--to the detriment of all concerned. Any therapist who seeks to help clients knows that taking such a legalistic approach and allowing it to pervade every interaction with clients would be counterproductive.

As one reads this book, one is struck by the intense frustration and anger which pervades its pages. It leads one to ask the questions--what infantile traumas have yet to be dealt with in therapy by this author? or, as the famous commercial used to say, "what's his beef?"

Let us hope another author can approach this subject without Hedges' open hostility and paranoia toward clients so that balanced methods can be developed to address relevant issues without defeating the entire purpose of the therapeutic process. Only a therapist who has completely given up on the healing aspects of therapy would take this book seriously. And for those who have given up, why not turn to a line of work that doesn't require such vigilance and paranoia on a daily basis?

This writer has created a tome which has the potential to scare the living daylights of any therapist trying to work with clients . His focus on practicing defensively seems to overlook the obvious fact that such a posture taken with clients from the outset is oxymoronic. Clients come to therapists with the need and expectation of a therapeutic alliance. No one call ally themselves with an individual whose initial and ongoing posture is one of self-protection, defensiveness, and guardedness.

Hedges' comments regarding transference issues as the basis for complaints and his over-emphasis on these as the source of dissatisfaction in clients leads any knowledgeable reader to wonder to what extent his own strong countertransference issues related to clients of ANY kind are at work in his writing OR in his actual practice. His hostility toward clients and toward administrative/licensing boards is overt and interferes with his ability to provide balanced clarity in dealing with the issues he discusses.

In my opinion, any therapist who adopts his vantage point for approaching clients will soon have no clients. Clients have an intuitive sense regarding their therapists' perceptions of them. Being handed stacks of legal papers to sign and a myriad of other documents designed to protect the therapist (of course, under the guise of protecting both) at the outset of therapy precludes the possibility that any meaningful work will get done or any therapeutic alliance could be formed. Clients are not a stupid as he appears to suppose.

While the issue of practicing with common sense about legal and administrative issues is important, Hedges' approach focuses only on negative, confrontive, and overtly hostile interactions with clients--to the detriment of all concerned. Any therapist who seeks to help clients knows that taking such a legalistic approach and allowing it to pervade every interaction with clients would be counterproductive.

As one reads this book, one is struck by the intense frustration and anger which pervades its pages. It leads one to ask the questions--what infantile traumas have yet to be dealt with in therapy by this author? or, as the famous commercial used to say, "what's his beef?"

Let us hope another author can approach this subject without Hedges' open hostility and paranoia toward clients so that balanced methods can be developed to address relevant issues without defeating the entire purpose of the therapeutic process. Only a therapist who has completely given up on the healing aspects of therapy would take this book seriously. And for those who have given up, why not turn to a line of work that doesn't require such vigilance and paranoia on a daily basis?

I found the Paul G. Mattiuzzi, Ph.D. review helpful, but a little extreme in the manner similar to his complaints about L. E. Hedges. These are confusing times for the practice of psychotherapy and a discussion of the problems that one can face, including models for addressing some of those problems, contributes to the effort to produce a more tempered solution for our changing profession. Therapeutic manuals and manual- oriented software like Therascribe are other examples of similar guide-driven change, but these tools require a tempered approach too. In other words, if you can see the opposing poles, it is a little easier to find a middle ground.

I would hope that the professionals that look at this book would realize that it does not obsolete professional consultation. As Dr. Mattiuzzi's colleague sought him out, I have often used these sample documents as an example to stimulate discussions with colleagues. In all cases, we usually come up with a modified solution suited to the given situation, but the sample document gave us a good starting place. Blindly applying these documents would be as disastrous as not addressing our new practice demands at all. Solo practice needs to be safer and more efficient for the consumer and the practitioner. If people find any of the sample pages on Amazon interesting, consider sharing the expense of this book among a group of colleagues.

I recently spoke with a colleague who was seeking advice about responding to a request for information from an attorney about a former patient. The psychologist was somewhat distressed by the inquiry. I saw it as a routine matter. She mentioned that she had read a book, which is the subject of this review, and that it had given her great reason to worry about liability.

I knew the authorýs name and decided I should read his book.

The author makes some interesting points and provides some useful information. I would suggest, however, that on the whole, this text it is not to be trusted.

Described on the dust jacket as a comprehensive handbook for all therapists, ýPracticing Defensivelyý is more uniquely focused on the challenges faced by clinicians who do long-term depth and dynamic work with seriously disturbed patients. It primarily addresses the threat of false accusations and licensing board actions. Included are a number of forms which can be copied from an accompanying CD. Many are standard, some are unique (e.g., ýconsent to feed my children during therapyý).

The text first gives reason for pause in a discussion about how to respond to a subpoena. A forceful, cautious and defiant response is advocated, but no consideration is given to the context or circumstances surrounding the request. It is suggested that the Supreme Courtýs 1996 Jaffee decision be cited (Jaffee was the first Supreme Court ruling to recognize a psychotherapist privilege), but the case is miscited, the facts are misstated, and the ruling is misinterpreted. The author goes on to note that if records must be produced, they should be taken directly to ýthe judge,ý and sealed with a warning reading in part: ýanyone daring to break this seal violates 2000 years of Roman and Anglo Saxon Law which guarantees sanctuary and privacy to all citizens.ý My guess is that this warning might be dismissed as an eccentricity. But I think it is more likely to be viewed as odd, immature, or unprofessional.

Additional examples of questionable advice are included. For example, the precise elements of privilege and confidentiality for minors seem to be misunderstood. A standard form for authorizing the release of information does not appear to be well drafted: it unnecessarily authorizes two-way communications, omits the signature of a witness, includes any information desired, and sets the expiration date at five years. At a clinical level, it is suggested that the only way in which symptoms from early trauma can be resolved is by causing them to be relived or reexperienced in therapy.

What is of most concern about this book is the attitude adopted towards licensing boards. It appears that no legitimate purpose for a boardýs existence is recognized. Instead, the author endorses the proposition that we ýneed to remain in a constant watchdog and adversarial position.ý He says that we must ýstand against unfair enforcement and unwarranted intrusion by the state into our professional affairs,ý and that ýthe rule is not to believe anything state boards put out because it is all so highly subject to political and financial motivation.ý It is said that those who sit on licensing boards and ethics committees have been ýseduced ... into naive and nonsensical moralizingý and that their efforts ýcan only lead to endless travesties of justice.ý They are accused of ýcareless prosecutionsý which are ýheavily biased in favor of conviction.ý

A centerpiece for this book is the authorýs discussion of his reaction to a complaint against a colleague and the subsequent investigation. He sets the tone for the experience by recounting a dream about Nazi atrocities, the smell of burning flesh, and jack booted thugs knocking on doors. He describes an ýadministrative monster (that) continues to grind out injustices that destroy (the) lives of my professional colleagues,ý the ýfarce of administrative justice,ý and the ýneedless damage (caused by) board stupidity.ý Before it was even investigated, the author knew that the complaint was unjustified. After all, the clinician had discussed the case for years in conferences with many colleagues. She was known as ýHowardýs case from Hell,ý and was described by the author as ýa woman who undoubtedly would have been burned at the stake as a witch.ý In preparing to fight for his colleague, the author railed against the ýf---ing boards,ý noting that ýthose state guys all have a police mentality - blind, ignorant, vindictive. They are dangerous.ý The anti-climax to the story is that the complaint was dismissed as soon as it was investigated.

I read this book because I believed it caused a colleague to worry needlessly, and invited her to respond incorrectly to a potentially delicate situation. I would suggest more generally that it would be a risk to rely upon this tract for anything more than its basic warning: be careful, practice defensively. Common sense would provide a better guide than much of the advice offered. Rather than protecting a clinician, I would suggest that adopting the authorýs attitude and perspective is more likely to lead to errors, mistakes and misjudgments, for which the liability might be real.

This is the most poorly written legal text I have ever read. If you are a student, don't buy this book and purchase a supplement on med mal tort instead.