Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 6, 2026

Implantation and Monitoring by PET/CT of an Orthotopic Model of Human Pleural Mesothelioma in Athymic Mice
Published on: December 21, 2019
Possible MPS eviction 'an unmitigated disaster' - patient litigator
1HMPG. chrisb@hmpg.co.za.
Abstract:
One of the country's top patient litigators and a seasoned opponent of the Medical Protection Society (MPS), Mervyn Joseph, says forcing the MPS out would prove an 'unmitigated disaster' for patients and doctors alike. Joseph, who has over the years received 'substantial' compensation from the MPS on behalf of patients, says he would rather litigate against an informed, professional opponent with solid financial reserves than 'fight tooth and nail against someone bent only on avoiding both the merits of an action and paying justifiable quantum'. Warning that the highly specialised health care indemnity/insurance market could be flooded with unschooled and/or under-funded newcomers, Joseph cited a current defendant whose insurers he is suing to prevent their reneging on their contractual obligation to cover the doctor in terms of his policy.
Insights
Patient advocate Mervyn Joseph warns that removing the Medical Protection Society (MPS) would harm patients and doctors. He prefers litigating against the financially stable MPS rather than inexperienced insurers.
Area of Science:
- Medical Law
- Healthcare Policy
- Patient Advocacy
Background:
- The Medical Protection Society (MPS) provides vital indemnity for healthcare professionals.
- Patient litigators often engage with the MPS in legal disputes.
- The financial stability and professional conduct of indemnity providers are crucial for healthcare.
Purpose of the Study:
- To analyze the potential impact of removing the MPS from the healthcare indemnity market.
- To evaluate the risks associated with less experienced or under-funded indemnity providers.
- To present the perspective of a prominent patient litigator on healthcare indemnity.
Main Methods:
- Expert opinion and legal case analysis from a leading patient litigator.
- Discussion of hypothetical scenarios regarding market changes in healthcare indemnity.
- Examination of a current case involving insurer's contractual obligations.
Main Results:
- Forcing the MPS out is predicted to be an 'unmitigated disaster' for patients and doctors.
- Litigating against the MPS is preferred due to its professional conduct and financial reserves.
- A risk of market flooding with inexperienced and under-funded indemnity providers is highlighted.
Conclusions:
- The MPS plays a critical role in ensuring stable and professional healthcare indemnity.
- The departure of established providers like the MPS could destabilize the market.
- Protecting patients and doctors requires robust, financially sound indemnity providers.
Related Concept Videos
Standards of Care I
Torts III
Quasi-intentional torts in healthcare involve acts where intent is not directed to harm an individual but results in harm due to careless or reckless speech.
Torts I
Intentional...
Methods of Documentation II: POMR
Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model
For example, a patient with a chronic illness...
Mitral Valve Prolapse III: Nursing Management