Patients may show the answers to a jury only if both are decided

unanimously in their favor. Doctors may present answers if either is

answered to their benefit.

McCall said defense lawyers gain no real advantage by telling

the jury about one answer, if the other went against the doctor. Stolt

"There have been some wacky results," he said. "The physician generally

votes for the physician, and tends to work as an advocate and expert on

the panel. The others on the panel tend to be swayed by that advocate."

The plan's opponents allege that incentives might tempt the

doctor-panelist to vote for the doctor being sued.

Medical Mutual helped Maine's Medical Association push for the panel

insurer, Medical Assurance. As its name implies, Medical Mutual's

policyholders are also shareholders in the company, which represents a

majority of Maine's doctors.

"They have an ownership interest. They have an interest in making sure

that malpractice cases fail," Stolt said.

"I think that's an unfair attack and challenge to the ethics of the

medical profession," McCall said when asked about the allegation. "I have

to be anything less than objective."

Maine's Medical Association and Medical Mutual view the

pre-screening panel as a huge success.

"The panels have proved to be an effective form of alternative dispute

resolution - relieving pressure on an inefficient and overburdened court

Mutual said in a press release from its Web site.

The medical association touts the panel system as one of its top legal

and legislative successes. It also lauds its stance against "the efforts

of trial lawyers to severely weaken the role of the

"We think it's been successful for both the physician side and the

patient side," said Gordon Smith, a lawyer and executive vice president

for the association.

Smith noted that since its creation in 1987, the panel system has

remained intact.

"It has withstood 14 years of legislative tinkering and trial lawyer

whining," he said.

To contact staff writer Lawrence Messina, use e-mail or call 348-4869.

Lobbyists for the West Virginia Medical Association want legislators to

consider a system Maine uses to screen all malpractice lawsuits.

A panel that includes both a doctor and a lawyer reviews each

its leading insurer believe the panel system has cut down on the number of

"I personally feel that it serves the common good," said Michael

McCall, vice president of Medical Mutual Insurance Co. of Maine. "The

fashion."

Lawyers for people hurt by doctors allege it has wrongly

prevented patients from being justly compensated.

"It is a nightmare," said Robert J. Stolt, a Portland lawyer. "Its

principal accomplishment has been to deny a remedy for people who have

Maine's plan was passed after a campaign alleging that a "medical

malpractice crisis" was driving doctors from that state.

Maine legislators were told that most of Maine's doctors were being

dismissed as meritless. The plan's supporters blamed this climate for

The same allegations have emerged from those who advocate that West

Virginia adopt such a law. But a Gazette analysis of West Virginia Board

of Medicine records fails to support such allegations. Maine

lawyers say they never saw any research supporting the allegations

there, either.

"We're a small state, so they made it down-home and personable. They

Stolt and other lawyers find several faults with the panel

court-appointed panel chairman who then picks a lawyer and a doctor -

preferably a doctor of the same specialty as the doctor being sued.

"There aren't many specialists, and the doctors pretty much know each

other," Stolt said. "As a plaintiff's lawyer, you start on the theory that

you're one vote behind."

McCall noted that both sides in a claim have to approve the panelists,

though they must have "good cause" to have a panel member removed. He also

been raised. "Both sides of the aisle [in the Legislature] are meeting in

committees to address this."

The panel cannot award damages or dismiss claims. Instead, it answers

at least two questions: whether the doctor was negligent, and whether this

Patients may show the answers to a jury only if both are decided

unanimously in their favor. Doctors may present answers if either is

answered to their benefit.

McCall said defense lawyers gain no real advantage by telling

the jury about one answer, if the other went against the doctor. Stolt

"There have been some wacky results," he said. "The physician generally

votes for the physician, and tends to work as an advocate and expert on

the panel. The others on the panel tend to be swayed by that advocate."

The plan's opponents allege that incentives might tempt the

doctor-panelist to vote for the doctor being sued.

Medical Mutual helped Maine's Medical Association push for the panel

insurer, Medical Assurance. As its name implies, Medical Mutual's

policyholders are also shareholders in the company, which represents a

majority of Maine's doctors.

"They have an ownership interest. They have an interest in making sure

that malpractice cases fail," Stolt said.

"I think that's an unfair attack and challenge to the ethics of the

medical profession," McCall said when asked about the allegation. "I have

to be anything less than objective."

Maine's Medical Association and Medical Mutual view the

pre-screening panel as a huge success.

"The panels have proved to be an effective form of alternative dispute

resolution - relieving pressure on an inefficient and overburdened court

Mutual said in a press release from its Web site.

The medical association touts the panel system as one of its top legal

and legislative successes. It also lauds its stance against "the efforts

of trial lawyers to severely weaken the role of the

"We think it's been successful for both the physician side and the

patient side," said Gordon Smith, a lawyer and executive vice president

for the association.

Smith noted that since its creation in 1987, the panel system has

remained intact.

"It has withstood 14 years of legislative tinkering and trial lawyer

whining," he said.

To contact staff writer Lawrence Messina, use e-mail or call 348-4869.