Prez To Address Medical Malpractice

[chicago]

Lisa N:

FWIW lawyers always sue for MILLIONS even though the damage isnt’ that significant or the person has virtually no earning power.

Actually, that varies widely based upon the individual laws (often state laws) under which the suit is brought. Obviously, for baragining purposes, the plaintiff will want to start high (and teh defendant low). But one doesn’t always have to make a specific claim in the filing process. In Illinois, for example, the only claim which will be made is that the suit is worth is excess of a certain amount (a mere thousands) which serves to keep the case out of small claims court. But nothing further is specified as to monetary amounts which are being sought.

 

[Lisa_N]

chicago:

Actually, that varies widely based upon the individual laws (often state laws) under which the suit is brought. Obviously, for baragining purposes, the plaintiff will want to start high (and teh defendant low). But one doesn’t always have to make a specific claim in the filing process. In Illinois, for example, the only claim which will be made is that the suit is worth is excess of a certain amount (a mere thousands) which serves to keep the case out of small claims court. But nothing further is specified as to monetary amounts which are being sought.

True perhaps, but the reality (from actually seeing these things in real life) is that the number often bears little resemblence to anything rational…like earning power or contribution to family support etc. They just toss out something with a lot of zeros behind it and hope that they will get something.

Lisa N (can you tell I don’t respect most lawyers?)

 

[chicago]

Lisa N:

True perhaps, but the reality (from actually seeing these things in real life) is that the number often bears little resemblence to anything rational…like earning power or contribution to family support etc. They just toss out something with a lot of zeros behind it and hope that they will get something.

It represents pecuniary damanges (as distinct from punitive or compensatory damages that pay any bills and make up for how the person may have loss of wages, etc.): pain and suffering which is abstract and up to a jury to determine. So, basically, what it represents is what society (represented by the jury) may think it is worth if they award a judgement in favor of the plaintiff.

So don’t disrespect the lawyers so much as the citizens of the U.S.A. who make the judgements and the defendants who enable the system to be the way it is because they find it in their own best interests.

 

[Lance]

--------
So don’t disrespect the lawyers so much as the citizens of the U.S.A. who make the judgements and the defendants who enable the system to be the way it is because they find it in their own best interests.

I agree that it is ultamately up to a jury to decide what the amount of the award, if any, should be. I think the greed in people comes out in these cases and most of them feel that the doctors and insurance companies have bottomless pockets. They don’t, or can’t, see that we all pay for these outrageous awards in the end. They say to themselves that if they were in the positon of the plaintiff they would want all they could get. That is why strict guidelines are needed. I don’t see how the system is in the best interest of defendants, seems to me it would be in their interest to put limits on awards.

 

[quijote]

Lisa N:

Well there are two sides to this story as well. However the big problem is that we have created “lawsuit lottery” where basically frivolous lawsuits will be filed in hopes that they will be settled quickly as a nuisance. Because the cost of litigation is so high, many times a lawsuit that could be successfully fought in court will be settled because it’s less expensive and takes less time. These cases require hundreds of hours of attorney time and take the doctor away from his patients.

Lawyers are wise to this tactic and use it. We need LOSER PAYS and that would put a stop to the frivolous suits while still protecting the rights of the truly damaged patients and their families.

Lisa N

Tell me about it. When I worked as a HR-Employee Relations manager, we had an employee who was fired for repeated, poor performance (she was repeatedly adviced in writting that if she did not improve she would be further reprimended and could be fired). She went to the EEOC and got herself a lawyer and sued my employer for wrongful discharge. She did not have a case. I had all the documentation and paper trail…I was dismayed when the HR -VP told me that we had settled out of court for $50,000 because it would have been much more expensive to “win” in court…

Cheers

 

[Lisa_N]

chicago:

It represents pecuniary damanges (as distinct from punitive or compensatory damages that pay any bills and make up for how the person may have loss of wages, etc.): pain and suffering which is abstract and up to a jury to determine. So, basically, what it represents is what society (represented by the jury) may think it is worth if they award a judgement in favor of the plaintiff.

So don’t disrespect the lawyers so much as the citizens of the U.S.A. who make the judgements and the defendants who enable the system to be the way it is because they find it in their own best interests.

Chicago, I do not so much disrespect the awards given, although there are some that are obviously outrageous and punative (the McDonald’s suit where the woman’s burnt crotch netted millions). OTOH what I am saying is that the original complaint often has a number that is simply not based in reality. A lot of zeros are added to the number and the attorney hopes by asking for something ridiculous that he may get some kind of lower settlement.

Just as an example we had a case where a 79 year old man died after multiple surgeries. He was old, frail and his body simply couldn’t take the stress. His daughter insisted someone MUST be made to pay, shopped the case all over town. No lawyer would take it until she found one who did. He asked for MILLIONS in compensatory damages although the gentleman hadn’t worked in decades and would not have worked even if he’d survived the surgery. The case was eventually dismissed after the attorney died of a drug overdose…need I say more?

The reality is that our system ENCOURAGES lawsuit roulette by letting people bring suits for any reason, even if the case has ZERO merit. While after a while such cases are often dismissed the reality is that these junker suits cost tens of thousands to defend. THAT is the problem I’d like to deal with. Capping awards may sound effective but it doesn’t stop junker suits. Only something like loser pays will discourage them.

Lisa N

 

[chicago]

Lisa N:

Chicago, I do not so much disrespect the awards given, although there are some that are obviously outrageous and punative (the McDonald’s suit where the woman’s burnt crotch netted millions). OTOH what I am saying is that the original complaint often has a number that is simply not based in reality. A lot of zeros are added to the number and the attorney hopes by asking for something ridiculous that he may get some kind of lower settlement.

The solution is to go to a system like Illinois has, where you don’t specify an amount other than something general like “over $50,000” to keep it out of small claims court, then let the jury decide entirely without reference point to something abstract. In reality, negotiations will be based more upon what it will cost to try the case and what a jury might award than anything.

The reality is that our system ENCOURAGES lawsuit roulette by letting people bring suits for any reason, even if the case has ZERO merit. While after a while such cases are often dismissed the reality is that these junker suits cost tens of thousands to defend. THAT is the problem I’d like to deal with. Capping awards may sound effective but it doesn’t stop junker suits. Only something like loser pays will discourage them.

Lisa N

And here I would basically agree. It is unfortunate that THIS isn’t the kind of thing politicians are talking about.

 

[geezerbob]

Most politicians are attorneys. Go figure.

 

[Lisa_N]

geezerbob:

And here I would basically agree. It is unfortunate that THIS isn’t the kind of thing politicians are talking about

Most politicians are attorneys. Go figure.

Yes and many go into law with the PLAN of going into politics. Most pre-law students study…ta dah!!! Political Science. One hand feeds the other.

Frankly one of the things that MOST appealed to me about George Bush when he was first campaigning was that he was NOT a lawyer.

Lisa N