All States are protecting the negligent/criminal doctors to varying degrees. Other States have laws similar to the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act.  Some States have deemed these laws to be unconstitutional.

1.  Limits the amount that attorneys can collect to 15% of what is recovered. 

Indiana attorneys argue that after they do the research, pay the experts, possibly go to trial and cover their expenses that they frequently can't break even.  They can't afford to accept anything other than a certain winner. Which means that if the records have been falsified or destroyed, or the victim blamed, enough doubt is created.

2.  Limits the amount of recovery.

Limiting the amount the victim can recover also limits what the attorney can recover. Which also reduces incentive and practicality for attorneys. 

3.  The statute of limitations gives Hoosiers two years to figure out what has happened to them, find an attorney and file a complaint.

In that two years victims are usually preoccupied with trying to stay alive.  These victims are required to do everything they can to minimize damage to themselves and their families.  Yet they are told they must spend time, energy and resources on reconstructing the damaging events.

The victims are frequently still in need of medical care. They find that medical care is denied.  They have been labeled and often blackballed.  Many times if they do receive care the next physician only covers for the negligent and then bills.

Trying to reconstruct the trauma has to go on the back burner.  The lives, families and finances of med mal victims are usually so devastated that reconstruction is not the priority. When most of the local doctors are colluding with, assisting in the cover-up or turning a blind eye to the abuse it is almost impossible to find needed medical care much less to reconstruct the initial events.

4.  All requests for compensation over ten thousand dollars have to go before a peer review panel.

According to the Indiana Department of Insurance this peer review panel finds malpractice in less than 20% of the cases that come before it.

Cases go before a peer review panel only after:
They are thinned out by the doctors themselves either through concealment, intimidation, death or other forms of cover-up.

They are thinned out by the statute of limitations.

They are thinned out by the inability to get an attorney. Only 1 in 8 ever file suit.

It takes an incredible amount of stamina from an injured person to even get to peer review.

And out of these one in eight the peer review panel says that less than 20% of these have merit.  Why is this?

This is because the doctors are sticking together.  Charles Podell, M.D. in his book WHEN YOUR DOCTOR DOESN'T KNOW BEST says this about second opinions, "Would you criticize a friend or colleague who probably plays tennis with you, knows your spouse, belongs to the same club and is referring business to you?  Of course you wouldn't, and neither will that doctor rendering the second opinion."  He goes on to say, "Doctors are conditioned from their days in medical school to be wary of stepping on their fellow physicians' toes.  That's just the way the medical profession works."  So why do we think they'll do it when the stakes are higher?

The decision of the peer review board (or the doctor's buddies) is admissible in court. 

This tends to prejudice a jury who may be unaware of that medical schools teach physicians not to step on each other's toes.  This tends to prejudice a jury that has never had a reason to question tort reformist propaganda.

In the State of Texas medical malpractice victims must file a $5,000.00 bond for each defendant and if, within 80 days, they can't find another doctor to testify on their behalf they forfeit the money. Another way to lock victims out of the "Justice" system.