Tort reform? I'll talk tort reform when I hear about reform in two other areas:

[Skidmore]

1) A public registry is required for all doctors who have had their licenses removed for medical malpractice and the AMA is required to answer to some regulations.

2) Insurance companies must agree to significant increase in regulatory practices.

If we need to talk turkey, we can. But I have not heard of any insistence that there be tradeoffs along these lines.

[lysosome]

1. Oh, I know...

Lets set a cap on how much the lawyers can take, rather than how much the actual victims of malpractice get.

[Laelth]

4. If you cap how much I can take, I won't take the case.

If I don't take the case, then there is no case. Then there will be no protection for victims of medical malpractice.

We the people, instead of the insurance companies, will pick up the bill for the injury.

Is that what you want?

:dem:

-Laelth

[liberalhistorian]

17. You obviously have no idea at all how much

work is involved in case preparation (hint: A HELLUVA LOT!) and that attorneys must upfront all the expenses and fees involved, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars (and in some cases even more than that), that they do NOT recoup if they don't win. How many of you would essentially work for free for months, sometimes years, and pay tens of thousands of dollars out of your own pocket with no guarantee you're going to get repaid? I'm so fucking tired of the "greedy lawyer" meme when most people have no fucking clue as to what the hell they're talking about.

My lifelong best friend was, quite literally, murdered by a doctor, whose attending doc didn't correct the gross negligence until well after it had occurred; she spent several straight months in the hospital and several months more of unbelievable physical and emotional suffering before succumbing finally last winter. Thank God there were attorneys in the state willing to take the case to hold that murderer responsible, despite the ridiculous tort "reform" that had been passed with the sole intent of enriching insurance companies and shielding doctors and hospitals from any accountability for the suffering and death caused by their negligence. I hope to hell her so-called "doctors" never practice again AFTER her family sucks them dry. And if that's harsh, too fucking bad. A wonderful, fantastic, irreplaceable young life was taken and her family and friends will never, ever get over it or be the same.

Another friend lost her husband after the ER doc sent him home AFTER KNOWING HE WAS HAVING A HEART ATTACK. The medical records clearly proved it. He had another attack and died a day later, this time before he could get to the hospital. The doc had clear medical evidence it was a heart attack, but sent him home claiming it was just indigestion. I could go on and on with these cases. But go ahead and demonize the attorneys trying to actually do something about it and sanctify the doctors who commit such gross and inexcusable negligence and who aren't even held accountable by their own profession, whose only concern is protection from such accountability.

[BR_Parkway]

2. Can we add - Politicians can be sued for not following through on

campaign promises?

[customerserviceguy]

3. Using the court system to deal with the claims

of the injured and the injurers, and the sue-happy and the falsely accused is just so expensive on every level.

Why not have a Workers Comp style board in every locale to quickly get remedial help for the medical problems of victims, and a swift determination of basic living benefits for those who have been rendered unable to work? Instead of drawn-out expensive trials that take years to lead to sealed verdicts, how about a system where doctors and hospitals can look at the claim-happy before they order a battery of tests, and patients can see which doctors and hospitals have the most founded claims against them?

[Laelth]

5. Workers' comp law stinks.

I have done a few cases in this area, and it's useless. The workers are regularly ripped off and fired just for getting injured on the job.

Please read my post below and learn something about tort law.

:dem:

-Laelth

[customerserviceguy]

9. I can't say that I know how Worker's Comp is dealt with where you are

But in Washington State, where I lived for 37 years, the people I knew who had to deal with them felt that it was fair and equitable.

[customerserviceguy]

11. Ah, glad I read further down

You are a tort attorney. It's pretty hard for me to consider you a neutral party on this subject. If we ever did eliminate or reduce the use of courts in dealing with medical care, you would be out of a job, pretty much.

Well, if people are willing to shove private insurance company workers to the side, I'm willing to do that with your kind of worker, also. Your efforts do not cure anyone, all you do is participate in a system that costs people time and money, and results in medical overkill for the rest of us.

[Laelth]

15. I don't take medical malpractice cases because the law here in GA is ridiculous.

It's extremely difficult for the Plaintiff to win here. I won't be out of a job if medical malpractice gets "reformed."

But thanks for the kind wishes.

I was hoping you might learn something from the post below. You might want to read it again.

:dem:

-L

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberalhistorian]

18. You'd be surprised and disgusted at just how many

DUers fall prey to the RW lies and talking points on "tort reform." I know I sure am. And people feel that way until it happens to them and they discover that their state laws have passed "tort reform", making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get any accountability. Then, and only then, do they give a shit.

[customerserviceguy]

19. Yeah, anyone who disagrees with a trial lawyer

must be spouting RW talking points.

Ok, you want to sue a doctor, I just want to see a doctor. I guess we've each figured out what we want from medical care in this country.

[Missy Vixen]

20. I want the ability to sue when the doctor is grossly negligent

In the meantime, ever been in a car wreck? Ever been hit by someone who's had multiple accidents in less than a year, and her insurance company sends a claims adjuster to your house three days after the wreck who starts dropping sheets of paper on your apartment floor, to see if you'll pick them up - i.e., "she's not really hurt"?

Anyone who thinks that PI or trial lawyers are expendable in this day and age is naive at best and an idiot at worse. I still have medical issues from a wreck I didn't cause fifteen years ago. We had to hire a lawyer just to get our medical bills paid.

>Ok, you want to sue a doctor, I just want to see a doctor. I guess we've each figured out what we want from medical care in this country.<

Oh, and aren't you cute?
Hope you never find yourself misdiagnosed by that doctor you just want to "see".

[customerserviceguy]

21. I want justice for injured people, too

and I've known a lot of folks who waited years while in poverty for it, if it ever came at all. What I have a problem with is a system where people who have been wronged in an alleged case of malpractice get no medical treatment for the harm, and no income during the pendency of a case. The malpractice insurance companies go into high gear to use the court system to engineer delays that cause this. I see a lot of justified bashing of private health insurance companies here, but why do malpractice insurance companies seem to fly under the radar?

There are three kinds of malpractice cases: gross malpractice, accidental malpractice, and "shit happens" cases. When the first kind is settled, it's often with a gag order that protects the person or entity that caused the malpractice. And the very existence of the last form insures that my doctor will do twelve tests when only one or two might be needed, lest my "shit happens" case turn into a case of accidental malpractice.

The President has acknowledged that doctors practice defensive medicine, and he is wise to do so. It is part of the waste in the system that costs us all money. And all that system delivers at the end of it is justice delayed or denied. Certainly, it covers up the sources of wrongdoing so that there is guaranteed a steady stream of clients for the trial lawyers.

There are a lot of things that need to be reformed to be able to provide healthcare for all. Single-payer is the top of the list, but true tort reform (not caps) has to be part of it.

[Missy Vixen]

24. Hmmm. More RW talking points

"Sue happy"? Yeah, right.

In other words, those pooor, poooor, victimized doctors.

Here's a little example. Right after our car wreck, I had horrible, debilitating pain in my neck. Turning my head was agony. My rehab doctor was supposedly the best on the West Coast. He told me that the pain was due to the "stress" of my upcoming wedding, and suggested that I lose twenty pounds. He refused to even take an x-ray.

I went to a chiropractor, who took a complete set of x-rays. There were torn ligaments in my neck. Imagine the look on Doctor #1's face when I strolled into his office for an appointment, put my films up, and said to him, "What would you do right now if you were in my shoes?"

Did I sue Doctor #1? No, but I should have, and I would have sued him for $1.

[customerserviceguy]

25. Maybe you've never worked with people

but while 95% of the folks you deal with are decent, and just want a fair shake, there are some people out there to get everything they can. They're argumentive, they constantly are looking to capitalize on the minor faults and mistakes of others, and even when there are none to be found, they'll make them up, just so someone will give them what they want to go the hell away.

Their cases clog up the court system that prevents honest claimants from getting a fair, quick hearing, and they cause insurers to come up with a gauntlet of anti-fraud measures to weed them out, that inflict pain, trouble, and delay on those who were legitimately wronged.

Maybe you are lucky enough to live in a place where attorneys don't advertise much. Where I am, you cannot watch a half-hour of non-PBS TV without seeing something that boils down to, "Did something shitty happen to you? Well, let's see who we can sue for you!"

I am sorry to hear of your experience with the doctor, perhaps he had a lawyer clever enough to make sure there were gag orders as part of the previous settlements he made, to keep you from being able to find out that he was that bad. A major part of reform of the malpractice system would require disclosure on both sides as to what the track records were for both doctor and patient.

I'm a fan of single-payer, but why not have single-payer malpractice in this country, as well? Surely, a government entity that handled all malpractice claims would do better by people than the private industry system as far as quick and fair settlements, and "marking" of the really bad doctors and hospitals. What would be wrong with that?

[DireStrike]

23. Insurance company workers would not be shoved aside, in an ideal solution

They would be subsumed into working for the government coverage system. Those that wanted to would definitely wind up there, if a large and powerful (as is needed) government body were established.

I think Washington state probably has more reasonable people than the nation on average. Just because arbitration doesn't screw people there is no reason to assume it doesn't elsewhere. I would like to see numbers on it but there must be a reason all large business entities always push for arbitration in every case where they have to deal with employees. I'm sure it's not just savings.

[treestar]

7. In essence you're saying you don't like the results some jurors come up with

On cases you didn't listen to, as they did.

The alternatives to a jury system are far worse.

Judges deciding all, for example, would make it easier for corruption or prejudice to prevail. That's the whole reason we have juries. 12 people minimize the risk of that.

There is such a thing as medical malpractice, just like with anything else. It's not as if it never exists.

[customerserviceguy]

10. It's not juries that trouble me

It's the years and years of negotiation, that lead to last-minute settlements where the truth never gets a chance to be heard by a jury. I've never been party to a malpractice lawsuit, but I've known people who were stuck on the merry-go-round for years, living off of dwindling savings, hoping for the possible settlement of their cases.

Maybe that should be the option, my doctor has one price for me if I want to retain the right to sue her ass off, another price for my signing a form that says that I trust her to do the right thing by me in exchange for a lower co-pay and an arbitration hearing.

Visits to the doctor should be for alleviating suffering, not for getting lottery tickets to the courts. And I think that's the way the unscrupulous lawyers view them.

I also believe that we would be better off with a system where overkill on tests only goes to those who are sue-happy. I believe that doctors and hospitals should have the right to know who's looking for the big payoff on a visit, and be able to act accordingly. I also think that the rest of us should be able to view the number of complaints, and their resolution when we go to pick a doctor or a hospital.

I do believe the doctors when they say they practice "defensive medicine". If we could eliminate much of that, we would have the resources to treat more people.

[Laelth]

6. Tort Law works on this principle: Someone will pay for every injury.

If a tort suit is successful, the defendant who was negligent or reckless pays for the injury (usually his or her insurance company does).

If a tort suit is unsuccessful, the innocent plaintiff, who did nothing wrong, theoretically pays for the injury, but if the plaintiff is poor (most of us are too poor to bear the cost of a serious injury), then "We the People" of the United States pay the cost of the injury (through various social services). If plaintiff loses the suit, he or she normally becomes a massive burden on the state.

So, for every injury, we have a choice--either the state pays or the insurance industry pays. People like me (tort attorneys) do our best to make sure that liable defendants pay for the injuries they cause. They usually do so through their own insurance, but I can go after their personal assets if they don't have adequate insurance. Defense attorneys try to make sure that their clients (the insurance companies) don't pay for the injuries their insureds caused. If the defense attorney wins, that means plaintiff bears the cost of the injury (and "We the People" usually pick up the tab).

Republicans favor tort reform as a means of protecting insurance companies. That's it. They want, as always, to privatize profits and socialize risks. They want the government to "bail out their rich clients" when they make mistakes. As usual. Tort reform (like caps on damages and various rules that make it harder for plaintiffs to win) merely shifts the burden for paying for injuries from the insurance companies to the state.

An additional benefit of tort law is that it makes the world safer. Companies that produce dangerous products get "punished" through tort law as a way to teach them to reform their behavior and act more responsibly. When you see a "ridiculous" award, that's usually the jury saying that the defendant acted very recklessly and should be punished for their outrageously unsafe behavior as a means of preventing similar behavior in the future. High jury awards are often effective as a means of making unscrupulous defendants behave like reasonable members of a civilized society. Without the risk of super-high jury awards, defendants will have little or no incentive to reform their dangerous, injury-causing behavior. In this way, tort law makes us all safer.

Cap tort awards and you take away the risk-preventing feature of tort law and shift the burden for paying from injuries onto the state. Is that what we really want?

:dem:

-Laelth

[treestar]

8. True, they never seem worried about frivolous defenses to good cases

Tort reformers seem to assume every case is unjustified, and be willing to throw out the good cases with the bad.

They are really talking about limiting access to the courts.

It would not lower the costs of anything.

[SharonAnn]

12. I thought that T"ort Reform" was implemented in Texas and rates haven't changed.

[liberalhistorian]

14. Same with many other states that have implemented

tort "reform", insurance rates haven't gone down; in some states, they've even increased. That's because tort reform has nothing to do with decreasing insurance and everything to do with protecting medical incompetence and shielding doctors from any accountability for the injuries and death caused by their negligence.

[customerserviceguy]

22. That was for caps on damages

and they do nothing to alleviate the basic problem. They are still an adversary system, only with a lower amount of money at the end involved. They do nothing about the practice of defensive medicine, which is the biggest cost of the present system.

[alfredo]

13. Repeal McCarran-Ferguson