The recent apprehension of Dr. Mark Weinberger has generated enormous local and national attention, with the media revisiting the intriguing circumstances of his disappearance and reporting on the details of his accidental capture in a tent at the foot of an Italian glacier.

These headlines appear at a time when there is an ongoing national debate about reforms to fix the problems inherent in our health care system.

Of course, no discussion of health care can occur without the opponents of reform focusing on the evils of a tort system that allows patients and their lawyers to sue doctors for medical negligence.

The "tort-reformers" argue that it's these lawsuits that add billions of dollars to the nation's medical costs as doctors perform otherwise unnecessary tests to defend against potential malpractice claims.

We are also told that frivolous lawsuits filed by greedy plaintiff's lawyers threaten the doctors' ability to practice on account of the exorbitant costs of lottery-type verdicts and increased malpractice insurance premiums. 

I think few Hoosiers understand the extensive limitations already imposed upon Indiana patients and malpractice actions.

In the 1970s, under the leadership of Gov. Otis Bowen, a doctor, our Legislature passed the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, a comprehensive overhaul of the medical malpractice system that imposed extensive and unprecedented restrictions upon the filing and prosecution of a medical malpractice claim. 

The statute provides, among other things, that every case under the act must be submitted to a panel composed of doctors charged with reviewing the conduct of their peers. Only about 19 percent of the panels find in favor of the patient. Attorney's fees are limited by the act, a doctor will never be required to pay the injured patient more than $250,000 (before 1999, the limit was $100,000), and the patient's recovery is capped.

While Indiana already has the most restrictive medical malpractice laws in the country, we now hear that the new health care reforms will further limit a patient's recovery of noneconomic damages to $250,000.  If passed, the law will now make it possible for the owner of a prized racehorse to collect more for the horse's death than the parents of a child killed by medical negligence. 

What neither the Indiana act nor the proposed reforms do, however, is find a way to effectively identify and protect the public against doctors who practice well beyond acceptable boundaries. If one subscribes to the "80/20 Rule," in which 20 percent of physicians are said to be responsible for 80 percent of the medical negligence claims, then identifying methods for improving quality of care for the 20 percent will go a long way to cutting back on malpractice claims and even putting attorneys like me out of business.

There should be no doubt that medical errors are a real societal problem. According to a July 26, 2000, article from the Journal of the American Medical Association, "44,000 and perhaps as many as 98,000 hospitalized Americans die every year from medical errors."  While these are significant numbers, they do not account for non-hospital deaths from medical errors.

I cite these studies not to impugn the overwhelming majority of competent, caring and often brilliant physicians practicing in our community. I do it as a reminder that the medical community can do more to police itself.

All of which brings us to the famous Dr. Weinberger and the lessons that can be learned from his spectacular downfall. While he meticulously crafted a practice that minimized his interaction with his peers, he was not entirely sequestered. Many in the medical community knew of his alleged aberrant and negligent practices, but very few saw fit to take steps to bring his actions to light. 

In January 2004, our office represented two patients in lawsuits filed against Dr. Weinberger. By the summer of 2004, a couple of months before he fled the country, our law firm was investigating 18 additional lawsuits.

I say this to remind those critical of the tort system that medical negligence claims do have utility beyond enraging physicians and the political right.  In addition to providing justice for those harmed by negligence, they often expose medical practices and behavior that no reasonable person can defend, thus making our communities safer for those in need of medical care.   

Barry D. Rooth is a lawyer with Merrillville-based Theodoros & Rooth, P.C.