
Tort reform sign at a Tea Party rally against health care reform. (photo: Pittsford Patriot via Flickr)
One of the favorite choices of the wingnuts for actual legislation has always been ‘tort reform’. It was their hue and cry to get out of making health care productive for most citizens, even though it is not an area subject to federal legislation.
In Texas where there has been extensive tort reform, conditions have been created that are ideal for incompetence and outright fraud. One area that has seen a true disaster is in emergency room care. Under conditions that may include extreme stress, mistakes can occur but the patient maimed for life cannot count on any compensation for those mistakes.
Since the new law went into effect, doctors’ malpractice insurance rates have fallen by nearly 30 percent statewide, according to the Texas Department of Insurance. And 82 Texas counties have seen a net gain in emergency physicians, including 26 counties that previously had none, says Jon Opelt, executive director of the pro-tort-reform Texas Alliance for Patient Access. “It has really enhanced the number of high-demand specialists — neurosurgeons, obstetricians, anesthesiologists — in parts of Texas where there weren’t any,” says Rocky Wilcox, general counsel for the Texas Medical Association.
But medical malpractice attorneys say these developments have come at the expense of Texas patients. Texans expect to receive extraordinary care in an emergency room, the attorneys say. Instead, state courts have ruled that a “lower standard of care” is acceptable for doctors practicing in ERs. They argue the “willful and wanton” rule means emergency room care in Texas is some of the most dangerous in the country, because no one can be held accountable for botched diagnoses or flat-out wrong care.
I happen to live in a small town not too far from Dallas for doctors and others to commute reasonably. Partly for that reason, our hospital is known to be something of a reservoir of physicians that didn’t make it in the big city. Of course, there are exceptions, but generally we know that this hospital ER is really a very last resort. In case of severe injuries, it is generally requested that the patient be transported to a better, that is, uh, better equipped medical facility.
If you are not able to work and pay your bills, face it, knowing you will get no compensation for being rendered disabled is the worst of all possible worlds. Its name is tort reform. Being the ultimate resort of doctors most worried about malpractice claims isn’t the state you want to be in, either.
There are other areas in which tort reform is a full employment plan for the worst practitioners. When I drive through rush hour traffic, I don’t usually think about it to avoid panic. If I am hit by another driver, even under egregious circumstances, damages are not really dependable for the victim. Let’s see, in a state that has provided refuge for medically incompetent doctors, what do you think are the qualifications for truck drivers and delivery personnel. Not a good prospect when you hit the road, is it? I’d stay out of any construction sites, too, since just taking away barriers to your dangerous zones isn’t going to make the city worry. They’ve got tort reform. Yeehaw.
We’re not all of us ‘slip and fall’ artists, the perpetual and/or professional victims of injury by encounter with hazards that happen to be insured by a business entity. We all know about fraud by that means, but in the tort reform state an innocent fall on or off of a hazardous structure may cost you your total means of support. If you slip on my front stairs, my insurance company has its own lawyers all set to protect their coffers, not you. Good luck in ER, too. Tort reform is hazardous to your health in many, many ways.
Of course, under present legal constructions, if you are injured by some particularly crazy behavior on the part of another “party”, to collect damages you have to prove “intent”. That other “party” may have driven out in front of you and stopped suddenly, but can you show that the “party” intended to wrack up his own car to collect on the insurance?
The most dangerous elements love tort reform. When the wingnuts insist on its being a great way to save your money, steer clear. They are hazardous to your health and your retirement planning.



104 Comments

Great post, excellent points.
Thanks. Sadly, this is one of those issues people aren’t paying attention to until they find out it works against them.
You have to prove negligence, which turns on what a reasonable person would do rather than what the specific defendant intended to do. Stronger, negligence is nothing other than a lack of intent (to act w/ reasonable care toward those to whom a duty is owed)
If you click on “intent” you will see that I was referencing findings that I heard about from the Sept. 17th Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s 40th annual legislative conference – and they are experiencing court findings that demand intent to show harm done, upping the ante significantly for plaintiffs.
Right, but that’s a different area of law. Tort and federal civil rights actions are different species of law analyzed under different rubrics and w/ different rules.
Different area of law, but it’s my impression that the courts are leaning toward this kind of judgment. I’m sure you are better acquainted with this area than I am, but I am just finding that less and less consideration is given to individuals at present.
Certainly you’re right that med mal “reform” is causing courts to lean toward finding some kind of intent, or at least a heightened negligence threshold, thereby making it harder to recovery. I was just being annoyingly nitpicky, I guess.
That should’ve been a reply to Ruth @ 6:07. Hm.
For which I thank you, I do not want to get stuff wrong, and appreciate corrections.
Aim high, Texas.
Shooting itself in the crotch is unique to the Loaned Steer State.
Wow! I guess the sign shops should be making a killing now. For all hospitals and doctor offices need the new information signs above the door. “ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK!”
I’ve found it is very hard to go up against big Insurance. I’m telling you it is a mafia protection program. You pay up or else, then after you pay up it is you don’t have the executive plan. Excuses, excuses, excuses. How many ways not to pay is their mode of operation.
Agreed. What started out as sharing expenses has turned into pickpocketing – by fraudulent contracts.
I’ve also hear of a type of insurance that is called Lawyer or attorney insurance. A plan that is designed to protect you from another attorney’s suit against you.
Maybe we all need insurance against the insurance corps.
Welcome to the great state of
SomaliaTexas!Thank you. Yes, whether it is tort reform, class action elimination, product liability restrictions or expansion of qualified immunity and raising of standing thresholds on governmental litigation, the hue and cry of the “conservative” set is ot remove accountability for the masters and leave the servants penniless and unable to use the courts for redress. The rich have already taken all the money, now they want the last refuge of redress for the other 85% of the people so that the class war can officially be claimed won and over.
Good morning Ruth.
It is fairly obvious industry has considerable sway over our political system and the “regular guy” has very little actual protections. The lawyer with a briefcase is the last bastion of defense between guillotine baby beds and dyslexic doctors from providing endless victims into their greedy maw. One only needs to read the history of the “Ford Pinto Memo,” and learn about Stella Liebeck to see that this is so. Tort reform sweeps away the last defense of the common man and leaves the populace naked before the killdozers of cost-benefit ratios.
What fun is winning if you can’t rub your victims face in it? No prisoners are going to be taken in this war.
“They have no lawyers [in Utopia] for they consider them as a sort of people whose profession it is to disguise matters.” Sir Thomas More 1516. On the other hand doctors were barbers until the 18th century when they began to be licensed to ‘practice’ medicine. What does the word ‘practice’ mean to you? Peace
Maybe this is Perry’s way of making the country glad to let him secede.
True, it’s an end to the Rule of Law that protects the individual, as I see it.
Tort reform is based on either the naive thought that everyone delivering services does their best and should not be held responsible for bad decisions; or, that you should only get as good as you can afford.
Which means that no reasoning is involved in the dialogue. The fact that the reform is based on either ignorance or greed or both is just par for the course.
I wrote about Tort Reform here:
http://tinyurl.com/278jjhf
/blogwhoring
This is a great comment and would make a great point for a diary to post as a follow-up to this post.
Tort Reform is just another example of the corporate government responding to those with money and power. Corporate Republican and DLC Democratic policy is always designed to shift cost, fees, and responsibility to the middle class. I suggest you watch Obama’s new tax system overhaul closely. Texas like many conservative Southern states are starting to feel the pain from their electoral choices. Move!
I hope Perry does secede. Then we can go about getting the rest of Texas back where it needs to be. Perry can secede but leave Texas alone!
Our country is based on the vote. People who favor tort reform are un-American because jurors vote on their guilt. Pretty obvious to me.
Shouldn’t we narrow this discussion to egregious malpratice? How can anyone ‘prove’ that any doctor did NOT do his or her ‘best’? And if a doctor is found to be lacking in skills, isn’t that the fault of the state who licensed that doctor? Peace Peace
Good suggestion.
I don’t follow? Please lead me from A to B. Thanks. Peace
You should reprint that post here with an update sighting this post. What a great post.
You make great points and squash the lie of frivolous lawsuits.
Just like everything else including fake net neutrality these days.
Lawyers don’t have money? Peace
Am divided about whether it’s better to get away or to stay where I provide some balance to the craziness. For now, though, circumstances are that having an elderly parent means I would abandon some one to abuse if I did leave.
I’m a person who tends not to trust the “authoritarians”, whether they are politicans, doctors or lawyer. Having spent many hours in hospitials with family members and other loved ones, I found that it’s necessary to always have someone in the room and to make notes and ask follow up questions. As pertains to lawyers, my advice to folks is to avoid litigation at all costs. They are there to make money, not justice. Well, I guess I don’t have to even talk about the pols. Yes, as with Everything In Life, Enter At Your Own Risk. It’s your life. Don’t expect that anyone is going to look out for your best interests but your own sweet self. And, therein lies another problem.
If you’ve ever been injured by a doctor, really injured, you really can’t sue them anywhere anymore.
My state requires the plaintiff to go before a panel of “experts” ( lawyers and doctors) to get “permission” to sue.
Guess how they generally find?
I sued a dentist back in the early ’90′s. We went to a full jury trial. It was intense and I didn’t get half of what the damage has ultimately cost me…my teeth.
But this is a small area of concern in tort reform. ( I swear, anytime i hear the word “reform” these days, I know it’s not going to be good for the people of this country) Mostly tort reform is so popular in our corporate culture because one can’t sue businesses for harm done.
We see how THAT’S working out.
GADS!
The power of Governance is in the hands of people by the vote. This also holds true in the courtroom. Decisions of life and death, guilt or innocence is in the hands of the people, a jury of peers. Tort reform seeks to handcuff jurors from dealing out the full measure of justice. Should a jury be limited sentencing child molesters to 30 days in the county jail? Tort reform is the same limit, only on civil matters. It is powerful interests warping the fundamental nature of what it means to be American, a social contract to behave in community interests. They do not want to be judged by a jury who votes, rather they want this fundamental right to be yoked and tethered for their own interests.
Very good advice. Peace
Yes and the fucking corporate whore lawyers who work for big business, lobbying shops and insurance carriers have one hell of a lot more money than those representing wronged plaintiffs, citizens charged with crimes and the indigent. I am so sick of this “lawyers/money” bullshit crap like you have just spewed, I could puke. It is a sign of argument by those that either do not know their ass from a whole in the ground or do not care.
Back attcha.
‘avoid litigation at all costs’
Agreed, but in cases of extreme injury, I think it sometimes is the only choice.
I’m very sorry that you lost your teeth and your case. I appears that both your dentist and your lawyer lacked the skills to sufficiently protect you. Peace
Tort Reform is another Right Wing Meme. Wingers and Centrists listening to Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, CNN and NPR are intentionally misled and misinformed about the ramifications of Tort Reform. Tort Reform is all about stopping Greedy Trial Lawyers.
When a particular Teabagger becomes a quadriplegic thru the negligence of another, he shall receive no more that $300K to last the rest of his days. Do the math.
They will cry the blues when the Tort Bus runs them over, but not until then. Then, it will be too late. Ignorance is everywhere.
The Mainstream Media is ratfucking us in the same way that it facilitated Dick Cheney’s lies (stovepiping) that led us to war in Iraq.
Half the Tebaggers think that Tort reform is Tart Reform. Fuck It, they say. Who eats tarts anymore, anyway? Pop Tarts, maybe.
I would disagree with that. Real tort reform is like any real reform. It’s not about one party getting exactly what they want. From reading this, I get a doctors vs. lawyers vibe, which is prevalent in much of the tort reform discussion. It is truly disingenuous to the discussion. That is just about leverage for the current scenario which leaves medical malpractice lawyers seeking to maximize the cost for any error. The real discussion is about the risk to personal wealth for doctors, insurance costs & responsibilities, and the definition of negligence or malice.
For most of us, we do not risk out personal wealth when we go to work. If we make a error, there is defined liability for our employers and ourselves (those standards change with intent, like most civil penalties). It’s different for doctors. Because there is extremely high limits on liability for them, they carry very expensive malpractice insurance, which folds into the cost of health care. I own an engineering firm, so I have errors and omissions insurance, which would be the equivalent of malpractice insurance (it’s a requirement for most competitive bid projects). It’s extremely cheap relative to the cost of the projects (<1% of the bid cost usually). Medical malpractice insurance conversely, is very expensive. I have seen a wide range of numbers, but between 10-30% of the cost of health care service is passing through to cover malpractice insurance. I would say that is out of whack with the real risk and harm from medical errors.
I don't know what the best answer is, but I do like what I have heard from Idaho. In Idaho, a three person panel (a doctor, lawyer, and layperson) hears the facts of the case and makes a recommendation to the judge. They are in essence, untainted experts, who provide insight to the court on what is reasonable or unreasonable medically and legally.
Again, if the state sanctions and grants the license for a doctor or dentist to ‘practice’ his/her craft, shouldn’t the state be liable for any damages suffered by the patient? Peace
It is really cute how you attach the obviously trite to you term “Peace” every time you spew crap. How touching.
A tort is a wrong that causes a harm. A tort is a negligent or intentional civil wrong not arising out of a contract or statute. These include “intentional torts” such as battery or defamation, and torts for negligence. A tort is an act that injures someone in some way, and for which the injured person may sue the wrongdoer for damages. Legally, torts are called civil wrongs, as opposed to criminal ones. (Some acts like battery, however, may be both torts and crimes; the wrongdoer may face both civil and criminal penalties.)
Who benefits from civil and criminal lawsuits? Arguably, lawyers benefit most. In addition, lawyers can harm their clients with impunity. Studies show that most lawyers (typically, about 80 percent) are incompetent. The clients of lawyers pay for their lawyers’ mistakes. Finding the right lawyer to represent you is difficult, because you can’t make a truly informed decision in advance. Public information about bad lawyers is difficult to find. Like predators, lawyers psychologically abuse and assault their clients in various ways and degrees in order to systematically control, manipulate and exploit their clients. And by the time that most abused clients have figured out what their lawyer did that harmed them, the clients are faced with two obstacles. First, the statute of limitations to sue their lawyer may have expired. Second, a lawsuit for legal professional malpractice (includes several different possible causes of action) for less than at least $100,000 in damages against his former lawyer may not be cost-effective in the sense that it may not justify a contingency-fee contract with a new lawyer to sue his former lawyer, and so the client has to sue his former lawyer pro se, i.e., acting as his own lawyer and representing himself in his lawsuit against his former lawyer.
In addition, lawyers in all jurisdictions of the USA are self-regulated by bar associations or equivalent lawyer organizations. Self-regulation does not work anywhere. The grievance process against lawyers is dominated by lawyers, and it is heavily stacked against the clients who file formal grievances against their lawyers.
If you seek legislative relief from law-industry self-regulation, you may contact your local congressmen and senators at the state level, and they are often lawyers. Even if you get past that hurdle, the state senate and house committees (usually the judicial committees) that consider such legislative reform is dominated by lawyers.
The powerful American Bar Association (ABA) is one of the top lobbyists in the U.S. Congress in Washington, D.C., and it reportedly spends millions of dollars each year to prevent the elimination of self-regulation of the law profession.
So your problem is with sentence limitations? For you, I think, there should never be a limit placed on what the punishment should be? Up to and including the death penalty or a trillion dollars in damages? Peace
I recently spent two days in the witness chair being hammered by three defense lawyers over a young man grievously injured on the job. I was the “star witness.” The defense did an admirable job treating me like a tackling dummy, but it was to little effect. The jury awarded 3.3 million to the young man.
Sanctimonious baloney. Cite you study that 80% of lawyers are incompetent, because I will guarantee you it is a pile of dung. Yes, it is all the lawyers at fault for your problems. Get a life.
Good job OFG.
I believe your problem lies with the ‘capitalist system’ under which you and I are forced to live. The fault lies with the system. Do you support that system? Peace
Tell me why that bothers you? Peace
I merely used the sentence limitation as an example of absurdity, exaggerated for illustrative purposes. As an American, I trust my fellow Americans to award proper damages. In some circumstances a judge will “set aside” a “jackpot jury” award and bring it to a more reasonable level. Then there is the appeal process. The system works without (nearly) without further corporate rigging.
Thanks Ruth. As a physician I have never supported these kinds of “tort reform” oar any significant changes to the traditional means of suit for malpractice. I have favored insurance companies and HMOs have the same rules applied to them. Their exclusion has given a huge boost to the situation we now find ourselves in.
It is so depressing I rarely speak of it and try to ignore bad medicine practiced on me as a patient and the stories of others.
The problems are a mosaic unforgivable dysfunction. The whole system in near collapse. The only thing that keeps it going at all is the genuine dedication of most of the people at the bedside. But I am seeing things such as you report more and more often.. They are becoming pervasive.
Why so angry? Lawyers can be just as incompetent as doctors and dentists don’t you think? I won’t take my car to the same mechanic twice in a row. Why should I trust a lawyer, a doctor or a dentist any more than I trust my my mechanic? Where does personal responsibility enter this picture? Peace
I understand your dilemma, of course do what’s best for your situation. But when circumstances change, get the hell out of danger. Quality of life choices assumes life.
How then do you explain the OJ Simpson verdict? And who gets to decide whats reseonable if it’s not state legislatures or review panels? Peace
Okay now that the wing nuts supposedly reduced malpractice insurance by 30 percent and this was the holy grail of rising health insurance premiums. I have just one question.
How much did health insurance premiums go down? I’m waiting….
Wouldn’t a universal, single-payer health care system eliminate profit driven corporate health care in this country? Wouldn’t such a system make the entire health care delivery process more workable and cheaper for all concerned? Peace
More cognative dissonance.
“Free markets for me, not for thee.”
In market free from Government controls, lawsuits control bad practice.
Tort Reform is government interference in a free market.
Free marketeers believe in free markets, except the part where they can suffer the consequences of a free market, being sued.
Doing anything for profit only seems to be the fatal flaw – and turns the person practicing that principal into the bottom feeders of the right.
Without a universal, single-payer health care system in place, health care costs will never go down. Ever. Peace
And I thought I was good at getting right to the crux of an issue. Outstanding point and Bingo. Good job.
The system of medicine in this country is so permeated with “business” as opposed to “medicine” that it is hard to know what will remedy the situation. It is pretty safe to say that taking the last large restraint on bad business practices in medicine away from harmed individuals is not the solution. Society is too litigious, but I wonder if that is not far more a function of the fact that business and government have abdicated from their responsibilities of protecting the public than it is lawyers and the legal system (not that there are not some abuses there too of course).
Free market capitalism is the most corrupting and corrosive economic system ever invented by man. And it’s not even in the Constitution. Peace
Well you don’t have universal single payer, and you are not going to get it; so that is irrelevant malarky in this discussion. The question is are you going to allow removal of the last refuge for harmed citizens?
There is no such thing as a free market the day after that free market is activated. From that day forward someone is working to game the free market and get the advantage. Peace
With your attitude we certainly won’t. Give some thought to being open to new ideas and in changing reality. You might find it to be enlightening. Peace
Every body in America keeps looking for the impossible dream, a one sided coin. If we really wanted to reform our insuro-legal complex we would simply make the contingence fee a thing of the past. A loser pays would take the crap shoot out of tort cases. Edwards tried his mumbo-jumbo six times before his psuedo science won out and then everybody else caved. He ended up the most despicable man on Earth. Everytime a loser pay model is debated, the insurance companies freak. They would rather hire legislators to preach bull-crap about crooked ambulence chasers who advertize a thousand times a day. It is far better for them that the buned, blasted, and broken victims pay for the system. When you hear the next republican jerk talk about a loser pay system, keep in mind that this is the last thing they want. Their allies in the ambulence chasing bar association play along with talking some trash about the keys to the court house. Both sides are co-conspirators in a constant Ponzi scheme that only enriches themselves in the long run. I`ve made a small fortune just referring cases. They could afford to pay me 33% of their fees and still make money. I can preach now from the morlaity of retirement.
Zenostoa
Treating human rights as commodities is the fatal flaw. I have no idea how bad it will get as the idiot Obama follows the idiot free marketers continues to pursue the current model. But a too often unnoticed factor is the transformation of professionals into poorly educated mindless providers as a result of following this model.
Of course it is the responsibility of us all to provide for the all. That’s when the government works best.
I worked in the med-mal defense for a long time – the whole system is devised to PREVENT consumers from collecting from the incompetent doctors and of course, the mafia-type insurance companies. “Standard of care” is based on “YOUR” medical community – so if you have a bunch of crappy physicians and get crappy care – it can be said that you received the “standard of care” acceptable to that community. This is one of the WORST abuses by the insurance companies who will do anything NOT to pay for bad medical care and people do not “know” this – they think plaintiffs are out to “get the rich doctors” which is NOT THE CASE – there are plenty of incompetent people in the medical profession. The insurance companies DO NOT EVEN ALLOW the lawyers defending the doctors to use any reference to the doctors’ names in correspondence and generally pleadings are against “John or Jane Doe” – all under the guise of “protecting the license of the the physician”.
This WHOLE SYSTEM needs to be changed to FAVOR the plaintiffs – most of the claims for mal-practice are indeed MALPRACTICE and not frivolous.
This type of litigation has nothing in common with the “Who ran the red light” litigation of personal injury/car wrecks which ALSO goes against the plaintiffs – the system that REQUIRES you use personal medical insurance RATHER than the car insurance medical portions paying for the injuries – in other words, if you have NO PRIVATE INSURANCE and are involved in a car wreck and cannot pay cash for medical care – you LOSE for LACK of ability to PROVE your claim with medical treatment. As we all know, NOBODY is going to treat you if you cannot pay in cash or have no health insurance. We pay for the MEDICALS in car insurance, yet people are CLUELESS that they DO NOT PAY until a plaintiff WINS A LAWSUIT.
The INSURANCE RIP-OFFS reallyneed to be at the FOREFRONT of FEDERAL legislation – each state controls their insurance and everyone is ripped off EXCEPT the insurance companies who have HUGE LOBBIES.
Ymhotep,
As someone who has been in legal profession for 35 years, I make the joke that “they practice until they get it right” – same deal with doctors.
Keep practicing until you get the result you need and want to achieve.
Oilfieldguy,
Excellent article – thank you for blogwhoring – I will continue to check out your blog.
Yes, it is all the fault of my “attitude”. Try to get a grip on reality there bubba hotep.
YMotep,
Actually, it might be quite surprising to a lot of folks – lawyers in general do not have the kind of money people have been led to belive they do – I have spent most of my 35 years in corporate defense – those lawyers make TONS but they are defending “We The Corporations” – the past five years I’ve spent has been in defense of “We The People” and the paychecks for lawyers is like night and day – the pay and benefits for legal staff is also about one-half.
In Tennessee, the payment for court-appointed attorneys is $40.00 an hour for out of court time, $50.00 an hour for in-court time and most of the cases have a cap of $1,000.00. Even Death Penalty Appeals cases cap at $5,000.00 and the judge always has the option to REDUCE the payments to the lawyers. There has been zero pay increase in lawyer fees in over 26 years here in Tennessee and the Leg is now totally Rethug so it looks like another lost cause session.
The plaintiff lawyers who actually make “big money” are like John Edwards – they wind up with a really good case or class action and win “one big one” and make all their money at one time — it ups the reputation, but they still go back to the lower paying cases to represent “We the People”.
The Corporations and insurance companies are the LOBBIES for the tort reform – they pay their lawyers high fees to insure the laws are only changed to benefit them and NEVER HELP THE PEOPLE.
It is very sad and UNFAIR. When cases go to trial, the jurors are not informed about the payment and/or fee schedules and the average juror in America, hey, the average American, has the mistaken belief that ALL LAWYERS are making a ton of dough – this is a fallacy promoted by Hollywood and the Reich-Wing.
Lawyers who work for “We The People” have my respect so much more for trying to do good while the corporate defense lawyers get bonuses for NOT PAYING CLAIMS to people who deserve them.
Please demonstrate how that does not create a bar to the justice system for the poor who cannot afford to pay if they lose their suit against a doctor who is part of a wealthy medical corporation, a corporatized hospital chain, big business medical manufacturers and the medical malpractice defense attorney who bill their clients hourly and never ever settle anything, no matter how egregious, until they have billed a fortune. Suppose a plaintiff cannot afford to pay if they lose to that juggernaut, are they just supposed to waive their claims for the wrongs so these assholes and you can sleep at night with your -edited by mod- prejudices against the advocates in the legal system?
OFG,
Good for you standing your ground as a witness – I am assuming it was a Workers Compensation claim – they are the WORST at ripping off the American People. So glad to have people like you around to insure some justice is actually obtained by We The People.
Sincerely, good work. Thank you.
There is NO SUCH THING AS FREE MARKETS and has not been since CORPORATE WELFARE.
Why do We The People subsidize the huge corporations like Catepillar, to name but one? They have LOBBYISTS.
FREE MARKETS do not exist.
As far the price of malpractice insurance – look at it from this angle – WHY do you think lawyers do not complain about high malpractice insurance and they have to pay for malpractice insurance EXACTLY like physicians?
The lawyers KNOW the INSURANCE COMPANIES are RIP-OFFS and made BETTER DEALS -
Notice the words: INSURANCE COMPANIES
Many, many of the problems in America are due to INSURANCE COMPANIES whose only motive is profit and they, too, RECEIVE CORPORATE WELFARE while NOT PAYING LEGITIMATE CLAIMS to We The People.
Thanks. Most of the attorneys I know take on cases that they can’t afford to pursue except by profits from their practice.
Tennessee has an egregious system as well – unlike most states, “standard of care” is LIMITED to only CONTIGUOUS states – which means, Tennessee must use the “Standard of Care” for Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia….you get the picture, the CRAPPY no-pay states.
The truth about tort victims is a bit more cloudy than pure black and white. I found that the same folks you seem to meet in traffic court for DUI,or dependency court for child neglect, or bankruptcy court for being a dead beat or a righteous debtor,are the victims of a tort feasor. Upper midle class folks seldom are victims. We wear our seat belts, drive better cars,don`t go out at night,drive on good tires,and are not robbed or assaulted by others of our social cloass. We don`t live in public hosing where we eat lead paint, we stop at cross walks, and we never let our kids out of arms reach. When the FEE is outlawed a crazy event will occur. Filings will drop and pre suit settlements will sky rocket. Victims will sign insanely high promissory notes that they will never pay or even intend to. Plantiffs will settle for about 66% of what they do now and make the same money. Insurance companies will settle asap because they know the lawyer would have never filed a case if he had less than a 75% of a certain win, unlike Edwards who went through half of North Carolina`s courts before some jury bought his witch craft. Insurance rates will drop and some poor folks will get shut out; however that is the price society will have to pay to saddle this monster. As I wrote earlier, there is no one sided coin. After about 5 years things will settle out and we will have a British system where folks seem to get re-imbursed for most torts committed against them.
Zenostoa
Texas is doing very well as a state as compared to most others – you can bitch and moan about the rules but they are working as Texas flourishes. This applies to physicians as well… doctors work hard and despite contrary belief, most earn a decent living given their level of education and expertise, but are not independently wealthy. All things considered tort reform is good for medicine and ultimately good for society because physicians have more successful practices and livelihoods and thus there will be more of them (heard of the physician shortages?) to provide care particular to underserved areas.
Of course for the wingnuts on FDL any body who earns any measure of money must be a criminal, is wrong, and has be stopped. This obviously includes physicians who are greedy, callous and only provide quality care under the threat of litigation. God damn them for wanting to keep more of their money from the well meaning, society protecting, ambulance chasing, plaintiff attorneys.
Except one of the primary reasons for “tort reform” was that costs were out of control.
Now tell me how the so-called tort reform has controlled the costs of health care in Texas.
And that’s really a very poor strawman you built there with your contention that folks here are against people with education actually earning a decent living.
What we do tend to be against is unpunished incompetence.
McAllen, TX, has twice been the subject of a study showing that doctors there ran up bills by multiple services for patients, contrasted with the rest of the country. The state has not done anything that improved that situation.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2010/december/are-private-insurers-better-than-medicare-in-controlling-costs-in-mcallen
Our health insurance rates are no lower than anywhere else in the country. And like the rest of the country, our health care rates at quite low levels though the cost is the highest.
http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=20100623_united_states_healthcare_costs_twice_as_much_ranks_last_among_industrialized_countries.htm
What I don’t understand is how those that purport to be free marketers are those that tort reform the loudest? Don’t they understand that tort reform is simply government regulation under another name and equally “noxious?”
What I don’t understand is how those that purport to be free marketers are those that demand tort reform the loudest? Don’t they understand that tort reform is simply government regulation under another name and equally “noxious?”
Here’s the answer to the topic of tort reform.
When you get there, see the details by selecting the Tort Reform web page.
http://www.mforall.org/pages/Answers#needtortreform
Here’s the answer to the topic of tort reform at a web page that gives answers to many other questions.
When you get there, see the details by selecting the Tort Reform web page.
http://www.mforall.org/pages/Answers#needtortreform
Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate
link says website is offline
I will not tolerate listening to ignorant sons of bitches complaining about the necessity for tort reform when,
“A 2009 study by Hearst newspapers estimated the death toll from preventable medical mistakes is nearly 200,000 annually in the United States. That’s not much different than a 2004 report from HealthGrades, a healthcare quality organization, showing that in the three previous years, about 195,000 Americans died each year; the result of preventable medical practices in hospitals.”
http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/news/2010/04/preventable-hospital-deaths-can-be-reduced-by-enc.aspx
Jesus H. Christ on a bicycle! Good plaintiff’s PI lawyers are necessary to have any chance at all against monstrously incompetent health care.
There should be no discussion about tort reform until the miserably inept and incompetent health care system cleans up its act and if a bunch of hack medical doctors go bankrupt in the process, I say
“Good riddance!”
Wow, you’ve gushed pure prejudice and nothing you’ve said is true.
“are not robbed or assaulted by others of our social cloass.”
Except, of course, for the banksters. But maybe they are above your social class.
I have watched what goes on because like the Godfather I refuse to be a fool.I see life for what it is and not what I want it to be. How many personel injury cases have you taken to trial? How many years have you spent in the trenches of human cussedness? Tort victims are some of the most vulnerable parts of society. They are not your next door neighbors at Reston or Chevy Chase let alone Louden County. The first time most put on a coat and tie in their lives is when their lawyer tries to middle class them up for trial day. I never buy them new clothes. I take them to Good Will so the coat and tie they sport seems like they have been worn before. I pick them up two hours early for court because they are always late and can not follow directions. They have upper lower class mores which means their lower middle class jurors will screw them in a heart beat if this status seeps out. Most lower middle and upper middle class,[very few ], cases are settled out because the defense lawyers know that the jury will feel a kinship to them and besides very seldom do calamitous accidents befall them. If you think that nothing I said was true and all pure prejudice than go to work for my advesaries in the defense bar, I will make a million more than I did last year, that would be one million. I had a bad year typing crap and not chasing ambulences.
Zenostoa
How about considering the other side of the story? The absence of tort reform harms the public by exposing them to an avalanche of defensive medicine. For some balance, see http://www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com under Legal Quality.
Actually, simple check lists have proved to greatly reduce the number of medical accidents. Taking appropriate care of patients doesn’t seem an unreasonable expectation.
http://www.healthline.com/blogs/medical_devices/2008/01/unlikely-saga-of-medical-checklist.html
Wow a line right out of ” A Tale of Two Cities. ” Right after the acquital of Syndey Carton`s doppleganger, wrongfully accused of treason. It was said to the junior associate of Tillson`s bank, a man in his late 70ties. All lawyers need to watch Fairbanks Jr. at his absolute best. I have observed that same scenario play out scores of times in court rooms from Key Largo to Perdido Key.
Zenostoa
“Taking appropriate care of patients doesn’t seem an unreasonable expectation.”
Ruth, you are way too nice and understated. Why not say, for example:
“Capping damages in medical malpractice cases protects the wrongdoer at the expense of the helpless victim. Failure to take appropriate care of patients should always be an unacceptable and inexcusable violation of a hospital’s fundamental duty to exercise due care. Any hospital and members of its medical staff who breach that duty should and must be held accountable. A hospital patient who suffers an injury caused by such breach should always be entitled to collect compensatory damages; and if the breach were caused by intentional, reckless, or grossly negligent misconduct, the patient should always be entitled to collect punitive damages.”
Given 200,000 preventable deaths per year in our nation’s hospitals, we need to stuff tort reform down the fat throats of the assholes who snivel, scream, and throw tantrums about how extremely unfair it is to hold members of the medical profession responsible and accountable for their misconduct and the harm and suffering it causes to their injured patients. I am sick and tired of their bullshit and I, figuratively speaking, slam people up against the wall whenever they dare to indulge their inner child and express their nonsensical gibberish in my presence. They hate me for it, but I don’t care because their point of view is indefensible and they deserve to be confronted, excoriated, and humiliated until they learn to STFU.
Anything less would be dishonorable and offend the spirits of the 200,000 people who die every year at the hands of the medical profession.
I have considered “the other side of the story,” and I reject it completely.
True, it’s intolerable that the right wingers would protect criminals and call it good business, in this as well as every activity.
It’s a sign of the times that the committee preparing the new DSM V has eliminated the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder.
The committee apparently believes that it’s the new normal.
I’m responding to Zenostoa’s response directly below by replying to myself because his response doesn’t have a reply button.
You said,
“How many personel injury cases have you taken to trial? How many years have you spent in the trenches of human cussedness? Tort victims are some of the most vulnerable parts of society. They are not your next door neighbors at Reston or Chevy Chase let alone Louden County. The first time most put on a coat and tie in their lives is when their lawyer tries to middle class them up for trial day. I never buy them new clothes. I take them to Good Will so the coat and tie they sport seems like they have been worn before. I pick them up two hours early for court because they are always late and can not follow directions.”
I was a felony criminal defense attorney for 30 years before I switched to being a law professor and the vast majority of my clients ranged from poor to destitute to homeless. I have a very different opinion of them as human beings and I did all of the things that you mentioned and more to get them ready for trial. I also represented many people potentially facing the death penalty and I’ll bet that I tried a lot more cases than you did and I won about 80% of them. I had little difficulty persuading juries that the government failed to prove its case.
I tried a few plaintiff’s PI cases and won all of them.
With very few exceptions I consider it a privilege and an honor to have known and represented my clients. I reject your class prejudice against the poor.
That would be directly above.