Quote of the week, from Charles Krauthammer (on Obamacare)

[Hallelujah]

If you will read my post and what Krauthammer said, I think it is ridiculous that tort reform is not part of the discussion. That is because the trial lawyers own the Democrats, and the Democrats have an 80-seat majority in the House and filibuster-proof 60 seats in the Senate. It's terrible. Are we on the same page here?

Agreed. And the MSM doesn't address it either. Doesn't sound like either the government nor the press really wants to solve the issue and bring both sides together.

Any legislation that panders to special interests, is doomed to fail. That's my point. Sounds like Congress is asking everyone to sacrifice except the trial lawyers and those who are uninsured. That leaves a hell of a lot of people to sacrifice for a few.

[RobinFinderson]

Poster child for tort reform: lady spills McDonald's coffee in lap while driving and the idiotic jury finds in favor of the dipwad of a woman. Why, because McDonald's had the money? Multiply that thinking across the healthcare spectrum and you see the size of the issue, created by juries under a false premise and no understanding of the unintended consequences of granting such ridiculous awards.

The tobacco lawsuits would be poster child #2. The tobacco companies have been given license to sell their products. Then they get sued because their product actually killed someone.......even though everyone knows tobacco will kill you.

Civil cases like these are simple examples of the government facilitating the peaceful mediation of private disputes resulting from disagreements about goods and services rendered in a capitalist marketplace.

Tort reform is an example of government interference in this private affair. Face it Halle, you LOVE THE GOVERNMENT MEDDLING.

[Hallelujah]

Civil cases like these are simple examples of the government facilitating the peaceful mediation of private disputes resulting from disagreements about goods and services rendered in a capitalist marketplace.

Tort reform is an example of government interference in this private affair. Face it Halle, you LOVE THE GOVERNMENT MEDDLING.

Actually I'm not. That's why I don't want government involved in healthcare reform unless it involves Medicare. Then the caregiver has the option to accept medicare patients or not. But if they are going to get involved to reduce healthcare costs, they have to include tort reform. If they are going to regulate fees to hospitals and doctors, include lawyers. Is that consistent?

[Hallelujah]

Civil cases like these are simple examples of the government facilitating the peaceful mediation of private disputes resulting from disagreements about goods and services rendered in a capitalist marketplace.

Tort reform is an example of government interference in this private affair. Face it Halle, you LOVE THE GOVERNMENT MEDDLING.

Why did the federal and state governments get into litigating tobacco companies? They both turned a blind eye to the harmful effects of tobacco and allowed companies to continue to sell a cancer causing product.

[UtahDan]

I can give you a counter study to your ABA report (which I found to be a real howler) but that's not my point. My point is that tort reform is not even being discussed in the health care reform debate, and it should be. Now, if you want to arge that the its omission from the discussion results from reverence for Constitutional principles, be my guest.

By the way, how do you find any impediment to tort reform in these words:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

MICRA in California has never been challenged under this Amendment, and I don't think any tort reform has been. Are you saying a cap on pain and suffering damages would derogate the right to trial by jury? Or are you just messing with me?

I am mostly messing with you and I know that the ABA piece is an advocacy piece, but I do think that just because the carriers say that jury awards are what drive premiums going up doesn't mean everyone should accept it without any critical examination, particularly when they have been pretty flat for a long time.

Would it surprise anyone if they used that evil plaintiff's bar for cover? I would be surprised if they didn't.

Last, everyone has this stereotype of the plaintiff looking for a payday, and surely there are some. But I have real problem with someone who lose their sight or ability to walk to or ability to hear or hundred other things because of negligence that could make their lives miserable and awful being limited to the cost of seeing eye dog, hearing aids or crutched, plus an amount of money ($250K) that doesn't being to make them whole. I think that juries in general are much more skeptical of plaintiffs and their lawyers than they are of doctors. But the plaintiff's bar is an easy scapegoat. An no, I don't think there is an authentic 7th amendment issue there.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Last, everyone has this stereotype of the plaintiff looking for a payday, and surely there are some. But I have real problem with someone who lose their sight or ability to walk to or ability to hear or hundred other things because of negligence that could make their lives miserable and awful being limited to the cost of seeing eye dog, hearing aids or crutched, plus an amount of money ($250K) that doesn't being to make them whole. I think that juries in general are much more skeptical of plaintiffs and their lawyers than they are of doctors. But the plaintiff's bar is an easy scapegoat. An no, I don't think there is an authentic 7th amendment issue there.

Not a rhetorical question here UD, but how many filed suits(not court cases), do you think neglect has actuallyoccurred? There are too few cases around here to really get a sense of that. That is the dividing line to me. If true neglect occurs, then the patient should be compensated. But for too many patients(and some plantiff attorneys) a bad outcome=neglect, and that is far from the reality.

[UtahDan]

Not a rhetorical question here UD, but how many filed suits(not court cases), do you think neglect has actuallyoccurred? There are too few cases around here to really get a sense of that. That is the dividing line to me. If true neglect occurs, then the patient should be compensated. But for too many patients(and some plantiff attorneys) a bad outcome=neglect, and that is far from the reality.

I am probably not the best one to ask. My firm is not a med-mal shop that does it primarily. Our cases come almost exclusively when a doctor tells the patient that some other doctor has malpracticed and refer them to us. A woman who had some complicated orthorpaedic surgery that had to be completely redone because the guy wasn't qualified to do it....a woman who had a tubal ligation but was not told (admittedly) that one of the tubes was not successfully tied and then carried a baby to term because her religious beliefs forbid abortion....stuff like that.

Many states really try to keep the sick chickens from getting through the door and I think this is a good idea. My state requires an affidavit from a doctor certifying that the standard of care was not met to be filed with the lawsuit. One might think such a thing can be shopped for but the reality so far is that this is not the case. I wouldn't venture to say how many cases have merit, but I do know that since most are taken on contingency that the lawyer has to evaluated each one as an investment, particularly because you typically end up fronting the costs including expert testimony and that 10K is usually a starting number for what you will front. This is a powerful disincentive to file nonsense.

Sure people can do it anyway, but the carriers keep dossiers on attorneys and if you are someone who files crap they figure it out pretty quickly and you don't make settlement headway with them, that is, you end up wasting your time and money. We also have a mechanism where the doc can force the case before a med-mal board made up of mostly doctors who make a non-binding ruling on the case. Though it is not binding the findings are admissible so that the jury will hear about them and either party can call any of the doctors on that panel to give further opinion. Double edged sword, but it addresses the idea that lay jurors are not sophisticated enough to understand complex issue.

Again, we continue to find that our plaintiffs and us face more skepticism from jurors than the docs do. Post trial interviews with jurors continually bear this out. But as I say, I am not typical of a med-mall boutique and my experiences are limited to my state.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I am probably not the best one to ask. My firm is not a med-mal shop that does it primarily. Our cases come almost exclusively when a doctor tells the patient that some other doctor has malpracticed and refer them to us. A woman who had some complicated orthorpaedic surgery that had to be completely redone because the guy wasn't qualified to do it....a woman who had a tubal ligation but was not told (admittedly) that one of the tubes was not successfully tied and then carried a baby to term because her religious beliefs forbid abortion....stuff like that.

Many states really try to keep the sick chickens from getting through the door and I think this is a good idea. My state requires an affidavit from a doctor certifying that the standard of care was not met to be filed with the lawsuit. One might think such a thing can be shopped for but the reality so far is that this is not the case. I wouldn't venture to say how many cases have merit, but I do know that since most are taken on contingency that the lawyer has to evaluated each one as an investment, particularly because you typically end up fronting the costs including expert testimony and that 10K is usually a starting number for what you will front. This is a powerful disincentive to file nonsense.

Sure people can do it anyway, but the carriers keep dossiers on attorneys and if you are someone who files crap they figure it out pretty quickly and you don't make settlement headway with them, that is, you end up wasting your time and money. We also have a mechanism where the doc can force the case before a med-mal board made up of mostly doctors who make a non-binding ruling on the case. Though it is not binding the findings are admissible so that the jury will hear about them and either party can call any of the doctors on that panel to give further opinion. Double edged sword, but it addresses the idea that lay jurors are not sophisticated enough to understand complex issue.

Again, we continue to find that our plaintiffs and us face more skepticism from jurors than the docs do. Post trial interviews with jurors continually bear this out. But as I say, I am not typical of a med-mall boutique and my experiences are limited to my state.

thanks. I don't have much of background to fall back on either. I just get tired of listening to commercials on TV talking about "Did you delivery not turn out well? Call us. You were likely the victim of malpractice"

I have considered working on contingency. I will not charge for your delivery, but I will expect 3% of your childs annual earnings for the rest of their lives.

[il Padrino Ute]

Poster child for tort reform: lady spills McDonald's coffee in lap while driving and the idiotic jury finds in favor of the dipwad of a woman. Why, because McDonald's had the money? Multiply that thinking across the healthcare spectrum and you see the size of the issue, created by juries under a false premise and no understanding of the unintended consequences of granting such ridiculous awards.

When a very good friend of mine was in law school, this was one of the cases that was studied. He told me there was so many facts in this case that were never reported that had the public known, opinion would have favored the plaintiff by all but the most heartless. Even I agreed with the result after he told me what had happened, and I'm a real SOB.

Let's just say that blistered genitalia is something that I doubt even you'd want.

[Jarid in Cedar]

As I have been thinking of the issue of defensive medicine, I thought of a positive aspect of over evaluation. I covers up for some dipshit doctors. They can led to the correct diagnosis by dumb luck. Essentially, I think that true malpractice would increase substantially if some docs ordered fewer tests.

[Hallelujah]

I am probably not the best one to ask. My firm is not a med-mal shop that does it primarily. Our cases come almost exclusively when a doctor tells the patient that some other doctor has malpracticed and refer them to us. A woman who had some complicated orthorpaedic surgery that had to be completely redone because the guy wasn't qualified to do it....a woman who had a tubal ligation but was not told (admittedly) that one of the tubes was not successfully tied and then carried a baby to term because her religious beliefs forbid abortion....stuff like that.

Many states really try to keep the sick chickens from getting through the door and I think this is a good idea. My state requires an affidavit from a doctor certifying that the standard of care was not met to be filed with the lawsuit. One might think such a thing can be shopped for but the reality so far is that this is not the case. I wouldn't venture to say how many cases have merit, but I do know that since most are taken on contingency that the lawyer has to evaluated each one as an investment, particularly because you typically end up fronting the costs including expert testimony and that 10K is usually a starting number for what you will front. This is a powerful disincentive to file nonsense.

Sure people can do it anyway, but the carriers keep dossiers on attorneys and if you are someone who files crap they figure it out pretty quickly and you don't make settlement headway with them, that is, you end up wasting your time and money. We also have a mechanism where the doc can force the case before a med-mal board made up of mostly doctors who make a non-binding ruling on the case. Though it is not binding the findings are admissible so that the jury will hear about them and either party can call any of the doctors on that panel to give further opinion. Double edged sword, but it addresses the idea that lay jurors are not sophisticated enough to understand complex issue.

Again, we continue to find that our plaintiffs and us face more skepticism from jurors than the docs do. Post trial interviews with jurors continually bear this out. But as I say, I am not typical of a med-mall boutique and my experiences are limited to my state.

Are physicians entitled to make a mistake once in a while?

[Hallelujah]

When a very good friend of mine was in law school, this was one of the cases that was studied. He told me there was so many facts in this case that were never reported that had the public known, opinion would have favored the plaintiff by all but the most heartless. Even I agreed with the result after he told me what had happened, and I'm a real SOB.

Let's just say that blistered genitalia is something that I doubt even you'd want.

Did the lady need instructions on where to put a hot cup of coffee?

[Hallelujah]

As I have been thinking of the issue of defensive medicine, I thought of a positive aspect of over evaluation. I covers up for some dipshit doctors. They can led to the correct diagnosis by dumb luck. Essentially, I think that true malpractice would increase substantially if some docs ordered fewer tests.

Many docs are forced to engage in CYA or defensive medicine knowing the likes of trial lawyers go to be each night hoping for something bad to happen to people. What a life to lead.

[DU Ute]

Many docs are forced to engage in CYA or defensive medicine knowing the likes of trial lawyers go to be each night hoping for something bad to happen to people. What a life to lead.

Doctors would be out of business if nothing bad ever happened to people. What kind of perverse profession preys on the misfortunes of others like that?

[JohnnyLingo]

When a very good friend of mine was in law school, this was one of the cases that was studied. He told me there was so many facts in this case that were never reported that had the public known, opinion would have favored the plaintiff by all but the most heartless. Even I agreed with the result after he told me what had happened, and I'm a real SOB.

Let's just say that blistered genitalia is something that I doubt even you'd want.

Let's also say getting my left ear drilled into a wall is not something I'd want, but if I did that to myself, I wouldn't sue DeWalt.

Did your friend share any of these "so many facts" with you? I have a hard time believing this case was immensely complicated. From what I've read, the crux here was that the coffee was too hot when sold. Is that right?