posted on July 30, 2002 11:53:17 AM new
Because of the ridiculous numbers of medical malpractice suits filed, the government is thinking about capping the "pain & suffering" part to $250 thousand dollars max. Do you think that'll help? Do you think it's fair to sue doctors in the first place?
posted on July 30, 2002 12:25:42 PM new
America is a 'Sue Happy' country. I just remember my dad used to say that a lot, and that was back in the 70's.
Yes I think its out of control. People sue for anything nowadays
About the capping, I don't know. Because there are legitimate reasons for people to sue for malpractice (but then there are illegitimate reasons also)
Good question Kraft. I think a lot of people should be thrown out of court on these lawsuit cases for being frivilous.
posted on July 30, 2002 12:42:11 PM new
They tried to fix our "sue happy" nation by making the loser pay all costs. But the Trial Lawyers assoc. lobbied hard against it(read: paid alot of money to ALL congresspeople) figuring it would cut down tremendously on frivolous lawsuits designed to exact a settlement rather than trial. Why settle when you are right and won't have to foot the bill?
.
Reality is a serious condition brought on by a lack of alcohol in the system
posted on July 30, 2002 02:55:50 PM new
While it is true that you can never get tort reform because politicians are all lawyers, it takes two to tango.
They may block laws that say you can't sue Briggs and Stratton if an imbecile shoves his arm up a lawnmower chute, but that doesn't mean jurors have to award anything.
Years ago, I was on a jury where a guy was trying to break into a gas station window and broke his leg very badly when he got snagged on a piece of conduit. Everybody started talking about HOW MUCH! They told me it was a big insurance company!
Every day you read about juries making these stupid awards. At least the majority are overturned in higher courts.
Doctors can be sued till the baby they delivered turns 18. Who pays for all this??
posted on July 30, 2002 07:10:09 PM new
I believe that everyone should have the right to sue a doctor for negligence or malpractice and there should be no cap. Each case is unique and should be considered individually as snowyegret said.
Only the insurance industry is interested in a cap...or an unusual case in which a doctor may not be insured.
posted on July 30, 2002 07:26:28 PM new
With lawyers advertising they will represent you on a contingency basis, what has anybody got to lose in suing anybody?
posted on July 30, 2002 09:48:28 PM new
While I agree there may be frivilous lawsuits, you can set your watch by increases in insurance premiums by the stock market and/or interest rates.
The reason for the "caps" and doctors malpractice rates skyrocketing has more to do with the insurance companies not getting the returns from their investments that they once did, it has little or nothing to do with frivilous lawsuits.
posted on July 31, 2002 06:41:18 AM newabout capping the "pain & suffering" part to $250 thousand dollars max. Do you think that'll help? Yes, I think it might.
Do you think it's fair to sue doctors in the first place? Yes.
Speaking of malpractice lawsuits, kraftdinner, how does Canada deal with this issue under your national medical system?
posted on July 31, 2002 08:57:47 AM new
The problem with "Pay to Play" tort reform (making the loser pay all legal expenses) is that quite often the winner of a lawsuit is the side most able to spend big bucks on lawyers. Many of the poor would not be able to or willing to accept the risk of losing even if they are right. This type of tort reform only serves the rich. The courts are a forum for justice, and when you restict access to the courts, you restrict access to justice. Look at HMOs. You can not sue them for more then the cost of a denied treatment. They deny many expensive treatments as a policy because they have nothing to lose by doing so. By resticting the ability to sue HMOs, you are resticting justice to the sick and poor.
posted on July 31, 2002 09:33:49 AM newThe problem with "Pay to Play" tort reform (making the loser pay all legal expenses) is that quite often the winner of a lawsuit is the side most able to spend big bucks on lawyers.
Ahh yes, I was waiting for the rhetoric of the Trial Lawyers Association to pop up. That only works in frivilous lawsuits. In the present system, rarely ever does a case go to trial. It is settled. If fact, the lawyers for the plaintive are quite explict and blatant with their intentions. They will even state, in the open, that they can not win, but they can make it VERY expensive for the defendent, so settle now. And you can not say it doesn't happen. I have heard it, read it in papers and we all have seen it.
If the law is on your side, and your are right, good lawyers will be POUNDING on YOUR door, begging to take your case. Lawyers want to be where the money is most likely to go. And, in the Pay to Play scenario, no lawyer in his right mind will take a frivilous or false case or even a case of "STUPID CONSUMER" (It didn't tell me I COULDN'T shove my hand up the discharge chute into the moving mower blades)
.
Reality is a serious condition brought on by a lack of alcohol in the system
posted on July 31, 2002 10:58:44 AM new"Speaking of malpractice lawsuits, kraftdinner, how does Canada deal with this issue under your national medical system?"
I'm ashamed to admit I know very little about Canadian laws and politics Linda. I'd tell you why but it would bore you to death!
I will find out about Canadian malpractice laws. They're probably no different from yours but I'll find out for sure.
posted on July 31, 2002 11:48:09 AM new
kraftdinner - That's okay...don't brother. I can research it later. I just wondered if you knew off the top of your head whether Canadian medical malpractice lawsuits were handled by lawyers or whether they were handled in a way similiar to our HMOs where arbitration is required. Thanks anyway.
posted on August 1, 2002 12:10:45 AM newIf the law is on your side, and your are right, good lawyers will be POUNDING on YOUR door, begging to take your case
This notion doesn't work when you have a novel or new theory of tort. A loser pay system would squelch any new theory of tort.
Torts are derived from very old concepts of common law crimes against the person or property. Applying these old concepts to new situations never gives a "sure" result.
What we take for granted as settled torts were developed over decades of winners and losers going to trial. Cases dealing with automobiles were derived only after some lawyer took the frivilous automobile case to trial, the same with airplanes, and trains.
If we put into place "caps" and loser pays elements, we also further place the justice system into a scheme of cost accounting for wealthy wrong doers. It would become not a system of seeking truth and one's due, but a system where the the party with the most to lose is the one absent.
posted on August 1, 2002 09:56:19 AM new
The only novel or new theory of tort that lawyers look for today is based totally on consumer STUPIDITY! Most lawsuits are merely filed to get a SETTLEMENT! To go to trial, the lawyer knows he would lose, so he just makes it too expensive to fight for the defendant. With all the delaying tactics and methods in the legal system, the system is tipped towards the sleaze and frivilous. In loser pays, the lawyer has to actually have a case. It works in England, AND THERE AREN'T ANY COMPLAINTS. That is what scares the Trial Lawyers Association the most, that system WORKS!
.
Reality is a serious condition brought on by a lack of alcohol in the system
posted on August 1, 2002 11:58:20 AM new
The only people the English civil legal system works for is the wealthy.
The reason you never hear about the little guy winning or even bringing a civil case in England is because the little guy simply isn't represented in the legal system.
In their system you know going in that you're going to pay your lawyer and maybe the other person lawyer too. This closes the door for poor people.
It doesn't stop frivilous lawsuits either. The only difference is that the person bringing the suit has the personal wealth to bring the suit.
Below is a link where the English civl system is starting to adopt the contingency fee system we have here in the US (no win, no fee). It also discusses how people are shut out of the civil justice system in England.
posted on August 1, 2002 12:56:14 PM new
On testing the contigency basis, how many of those 28,000 cases were found to be frivilous and having no merit and were brought simply because the plaintiff had nothing to lose and everything to gain? How many of those cases were ones that were initiated by the lawyers for a "supposed" wrong that the "victim" actually had to be convinced of. All they said is that when they people had nothing to lose and everything to gain, they sued. Plus that was ones that went to court. What about the extortion threats made by lawyers to companies to get settlements without ever even going to court?
I stepped off a step the other day and landed wrong. At present, my knee hurts. It is my contention that if that step was a half an inch lower, I wouldn't have hurt my knee. And I could get a doctor to say that. But it would never go to court. Either the company pays me a $100,000 or me and my lawyer will run their legal bills up to a million before it ever makes it to the docket. AND IT WON'T COST ME A THING!
.
Reality is a serious condition brought on by a lack of alcohol in the system
posted on August 1, 2002 01:48:59 PM new Either the company pays me a $100,000 or me and my lawyer will run their legal bills up to a million before it ever makes it to the docket
If your case is frivilous and without merit, it could be stopped in its tracks for less than $1000 by a highly paid lawyer, or for nothing by in-house council.
If a case is "frivilous" or without merit in the US it is thrown out immediately by the court. This is done on the filing and with or sometimes without a motion. A case that is frivilous on its face doesn't even make it to discovery.
Settling a frivilous case that a court wouldn't accept on its face is extremely rare. Weathly defendants that can afford settlements do not settle because it is cheaper that fighting the court case. Although that is what they usually tell the press.
Fighting a case and winning it is money well spent by wealthy defendants.
It does two things for them. First it establishes a body of law which they and like parties can depend on, and second they have a palintiff and lawyer who lost all their costs in pursuing the case.
The "class action" cases are notorious for settling before trial, and nearly every defendant claims they settled because it was cheaper than going through a trial. However, on close examination, you'll find that the defendant(s) have already experienced the majority of the costs associated with a trial before they settle. Trials themselves are cheap. Trial preparation is expensive. Without trial preparation, there is no way of knowing whether the case can be won, and how much it would cost if the defendant lost, nor what the costs of litigation would be. Discovery expences and class notices for the class Plaintiffs costs are also generally born by the defendant in class actions. You can't even settle a class action without notices.
There are difficult cases, and there are close cases, but truely frivilous cases don't go to trial and are rarely given a settlement.
But it is mainly the press's fault that the public thinks frivilous cases settle.
A prime example was the notorious MacDonalds coffee case. The press made the case out to be frivilous and left out the facts of the case.
The press reported it as some old women who spilled coffee in her lap and sued and made millions.
What they left out was that the coffee actually burned the flesh away from a most sensitive area of her body, which required hospitalization and skin grafts. They also left out that the coffee was heated to a temperature beyond what the company states the coffee should be. The press also left out that the woman offered to settle for the cost of her medical bills only, which were less than $25,000.
Eventhough the press made this case out to be frivilous, it was not. But why didn't they settle out of court ? Because they didn't want case law established that a resturant is liable for injuries caused by scalding hot drinks. There was more at stake in winning the case than the cost of the trial.
Defendants do not settle cases that are frivilous. They do settle cases that they feel they will lose, and they vigorously fight cases that would require them to change their behavior.
posted on August 1, 2002 03:22:24 PM new
It is very hard to determine a frivolous and rarely is it done. I have only heard of one, only one case being thrown out because it was determined to be frivolous. But I have read about many meritless cases that either went through or were settled because of the expense.
Want to hear some.
A burglar broke a window in a house and in the dark, tripped over a chair. He broke his leg and then sued the homeowner. He won a million dollars.
A ladder manufacturer was sued, he eventually settled. A consumer placed the ladder on frozen manure one morning. In the afternoon, the sun thawed the manure and the ladder fell over with the person on it. Sued the manufacturer because there wasn't a warning on it, I guess about the effects of thawing manure on ladder stability.
The cabbie who caught the purse snatcher by pinning him with his cab against a wall. The purse snatcher sued and won by reason of using excessive force.
And there are thousands more.
As for the coffee incident, it was Burger King and the lady personally placed the coffee in harms way(even I have the brains to put my coffee in a cup holder). BK fought it all the way and lost on a jury trial (because as one of the jurors put it, "insurance will cover it" ) yet on appeal, most of it was thrown out. I think all they did have to pay was the medical costs, maybe less, and the lawyer got a third of that. So it cost the woman a little bit. But it cost BK millions in legal fees. AND it cost you and I a hot cup of coffee every morning with my breakfast sandwich.
.
Reality is a serious condition brought on by a lack of alcohol in the system
[ edited by mlecher on Aug 1, 2002 03:24 PM ]
posted on August 2, 2002 03:00:49 AM new
No, the coffee case was MacDonalds. The jury awarded what was determined to be the amount of money McD's takes in for coffee sales for one day world wide.
I couldn't make any conclusions about the other cases without all the facts.
posted on August 2, 2002 05:28:24 AM new
It was McDonald's, there were no cup holders in motor vehicles then and the case had merrit and I think settled appropriately and fairly.
Frequently the defendants settle before trial because the clause "no admition of guilt" is added. Often it is more expensive in dollars and cents, but not having to admit guilt in a big incentive to keep it from trial...but it does not in any way indicate that they are actually without guilt.
Kraftdinner...if a woman days no to a man when she is approached for sex, and he "does" it anyway, should the woman be able to sue? Here, it is a crime so criminal charges could (should) also be filed.
If I say no to a medical procedure...it violates my right to control what happens to my body if someone forces that treatment on me. I think it is fully justifiable to sue under these circumstances...no matter if the original no was based on religous principles or informed choice. It is not frivilous to demand that physicians respect my right of choice.
mlecher I would be quite interested in seeing more about those particular cases. As Redmond stated...the McDonald's case was presented much differently that what actually occurred and it tainted my belief in one statement reports of other cases. It that particular case the woman had a quarter of a million dollars worth of medical care at the healthcare costs of two plus decades ago...they were horrific injuries caused by disregard for the personal safty of people that were handling that coffee.
Please call me Charlotte so I don't have ta change my ID.
[ edited by BittyBug on Aug 2, 2002 05:30 AM ]
posted on August 2, 2002 05:51:36 AM new
It was Mickey Dee's Steakhouse, why did I think it was BK? But what do you mean cars didn't have cup holder's? When I purchased my first car in 1976, I knew I would be drinking coffee in my car. So I went to the local Auto Parts store and purchased some for a few dollars. I took responsibility. Maybe that was the wrong thing to do and maybe that is why I am not wealthy today, I take responsibility for my OWN actions.
Yes, the coffee was hot but guess what, IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE HOT! I bet you that when that woman make instant coffee at home, her water was over 200 degrees when she pours it. If she had spilled it on herself at home, who would she have blamed? But because she was at McDonald's, she blamed them for her stupidity.
Most people look at it, I believe, wrong. Alot say it was McDonald's fault because it was too hot. However, it could have been a million degrees(yes, a tad facetious) in temperature and if she had treated it like a RESPONSIBLE ADULT, there would have been no problems. But there is no money there.....
.
Reality is a serious condition brought on by a lack of alcohol in the system
posted on August 2, 2002 07:52:24 AM new
The coffee case is the perfect example of it's everybody's fault but your own.
It would have been different if a McD employee dropped the coffee on her. But if you dump it on yourself, well stupid you. Coffee is supposed to be hot and therefore it doesn't matter if it's 185 degrees or 205.
The majority of suits are frivolous. And don't think it is free. A day does not go by that your life isn't affected. On the news last night they said that see-saws have disappeared from across the country for fear of lawsuits. We pay through the nose for all of it.
A friend of mine does very well every time he has a car accident. His lawyer sets up regularly scheduled appointments at a doctor, a chiropractor, and a physical therapist. Each time he gets in the low 5 figures.
One of the largest sources of lawsuits is convicts filing annoyance suits from prison.
A review board should look at each case. If they determine the case is frivolous, then your LAWYER pays all costs if you lose.
posted on August 2, 2002 08:08:01 AM newI stepped off a step the other day and landed wrong. At present, my knee hurts. It is my contention that if that step was a half an inch lower, I wouldn't have hurt my knee. And I could get a doctor to say that. But it would never go to court. Either the company pays me a $100,000 or me and my lawyer will run their legal bills up to a million before it ever makes it to the docket. AND IT WON'T COST ME A THING.
True. Hope your knee is better.
My sister worked as a claims adjuster for an insurance company who had [among others] some major grocery stores as their clients. She shared that their policy was if the medical claim is under $2,500.00 - pay it...no questions asked. She said many shoppers submitted claims for slipping in the grocery story, when the stock clerks made statements there was nothing on the floors that they could have slipped on.
That same sister and brother-in-law have filed and won two lawsuits which totaled over $125,000.00 against two businesses. She knew the odds of filing and winning a case. She knew how willing insurance companies are to settle quickly rather than going to court. And they took advantage of that knowledge. I believe that's wrong...but I believe it's done all the time.
posted on August 2, 2002 08:09:39 AM new
Another silly, but typical lawsuit.
A brand of vaccuum cleaner had a metal fan in the suction tube. In one improvement the fan was moved closer to the front of the tube. Suddenly, there was a rash of injuries and the accompanying lawsuit in regards to the ends of "male members" being severely injured and chopped off. The fan was far back enough that fingers were not in danger. The lawsuits alleges that the vaccuum cleaner did not have the "proper" warnings posted on the cleaner itself...
Now, whose fault is that....
.
Reality is a serious condition brought on by a lack of alcohol in the system
posted on August 2, 2002 09:44:26 AM new
I have to jump in here.
My brother is a food scientist in the food processing industry and he relates this bit of information on this topic:
"There are certain people who make a habit of causing lawsuits to happen against businesses in the food industry that are bogus. However, the company cannot prove that the person did not get sick or injured off of their product. Therefore, even though they are likely not at fault, they settle out of court because it is just easier this way."
The food processing companies for decades now have kept a "list" of those who sue them and pass the info around. When someone starts suing the food processors too often, they can use it as evidence to discredit the litigant's claims and put an end to that type of extortion.
This "listing" has been widened in recent years, being passed around to toy manufacturers, automobile manufacturers, and quite frankly, every business that's been a target of these scam artists. Let me say that these businesses do take a first or second claim seriously, but after it turns out that some people evidently do lawsuits for a living, there is a certain lack of creditability that is built up there.
Having said that, I agree with REAMOND that a lot of the hype about so-called "frivolous" lawsuits is purely bogus. When you consider that the insurance industry as a whole rakes in over 400 Billion $ Dollars annually, a payout of a few thousand dollars is a mere nuisance instead of punishment. That their fear is that someday, a jury may actually award someone an amount that stings them prompts them to put the idea of "award caps" into place.
Hypothetically, if an insurance company somehow maliciously kills one of your kids ~~ what amount of money is going to hurt them? They could award you a Billion dollars compensation and the shareholders likely won't see a penny drop in stocks that quarter. But if they allow that to happen, then next time it'll be 10 billion, then 100 billion. Then, then industries will begin to feel the heat! They want to stop it now, before it hurts them to pay out. And that means a campaign of disinformation and bribery of politicians to the White House level.
For instance, we have Republican nutcases here running for office. They first DJ a talk show for a few years, then they run for office and win with their bizaar rhetoric. One of them wants the FDA demolished and has a following that adores him for wanting that. Another wants to take all homosexuals out and run them out of the state or castrate them. Other want to turn people who work for the state into mere slaves without pay or benefits of any sort (they should work for the state for the Privilege!) And that's just the Republicans here! The democrats make most voters here want to throw up. So damned corrupt, they smile at you as they slip the shiv under your ribs in the back. It's no wonder that voters in this state have a hankering for the likes of independents everywhere, because they can't seem to get rid of the criminals and mentally ill out of office here.
And you should hear them. "Frivolous lawsuits" is a favorite horse for them to beat. The AM radio stations here are full of these right-wing, ultra-conservatives blathering endlessly about what's wrong with every consumer protection and every civil right and liberty in the book all day long. Unfortunately, these types attract nutcases who love that stuff to this state. My point is that a lot of the criticism is nonsense and that caps on awards or diverting cases into non-judicial courts is only benefiting the culprits and hurts the consumer: the courts aren't "hurt" - it's their JOB to be there!
