VABills Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 for the next term. When is he going to get some congressman to sponser legislation to put some limits on medical malpractice lawsuits. I want to see them high enough to really help those in need, but low enough to help control or lower health care costs. Also part of this should be penalties for ambulance chaser lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 What kind of penalties do you propose? And for what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 What kind of penalties do you propose? And for what? 137443[/snapback] Loser pays would be a good start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 29, 2004 Author Share Posted November 29, 2004 What kind of penalties do you propose? And for what? 137443[/snapback] For bringing up frivolous lawsuits. And penalties would be restricting right for 12 months to bring any new lawsuits up, after the 3rd strike. Stripping lawyers of their right to practice law, I don't know, get creative. And yeah loser pays, and potentially is brought up on charges of bringing frivolous lawsuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Loser pays would be a good start. 137476[/snapback] That's how our AFGE union local has it set up for arbitration... And boy does the agency hate it. I guess they are sick of losing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Loser pays would be a good start. 137476[/snapback] It would be a great start if what you are hoping to achieve is to prevent any case from ever getting started unless it was a 100% slam dunk from the git-go. Malpractice cases are decided by juries, you know, the same people who let OJ go. Believe it or not, they make mistakes. The thing is, people like to think that all cases are either 100% winners or completely frivolous. Truth is, 99% of the cases fall somewhere in between. If there were no doubts about whether or not the Doctor was at fault, we wouldn't need juries. The whole reason we need them is to decide close cases. Why should anyone be punished for a close case that was barely won or lost by one side or the other? The "loser pays" rules I have seen proposed most often are that in name only. In effect they are "plaintiff pays if he loses" and "Defendant does not pay if he loses". Loser pays only if the loser is the plaintiff. Litigation is so expensive and time consuming as it is, no lawyer worth his salt is going to take a ridiculous case. He ends up losing sooner or later anyway and all that time and money is gone. You take cases you can win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 That's how our AFGE union local has it set up for arbitration... And boy does the agency hate it. I guess they are sick of losing? 137515[/snapback] I thought the point of arbitration was to avoid expensive impasses that eventually result in lawsuits. As such, loser pays doesn't seem to make much sense in that senario. What's the alternative to arbitration if you are going to penalize good faith efforts from the parties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 I thought the point of arbitration was to avoid expensive impasses that eventually result in lawsuits. As such, loser pays doesn't seem to make much sense in that senario. What's the alternative to arbitration if you are going to penalize good faith efforts from the parties? 137769[/snapback] It is not much money yet, it is a small local. Somebody has to pay the expenses of the arbitrator? Arbitration is to us is expensive impasse. Usually most things can be solved before impasse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Loser pays would be a good start. 137476[/snapback] Loser pays is not the American way. The law is purposefully set up so that the commoner can afford to bring a lawsuit against wealth and corporations. It's not an accident that the law was structured that way. In a loser pays system, small people lose access to the courts. The courts have tons of power to sanction frivilous lawsuits. Judges just never use that power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 It would be a great start if what you are hoping to achieve is to prevent any case from ever getting started unless it was a 100% slam dunk from the git-go. Malpractice cases are decided by juries, you know, the same people who let OJ go. Believe it or not, they make mistakes. The thing is, people like to think that all cases are either 100% winners or completely frivolous. Truth is, 99% of the cases fall somewhere in between. If there were no doubts about whether or not the Doctor was at fault, we wouldn't need juries. The whole reason we need them is to decide close cases. Why should anyone be punished for a close case that was barely won or lost by one side or the other? The "loser pays" rules I have seen proposed most often are that in name only. In effect they are "plaintiff pays if he loses" and "Defendant does not pay if he loses". Loser pays only if the loser is the plaintiff. Litigation is so expensive and time consuming as it is, no lawyer worth his salt is going to take a ridiculous case. He ends up losing sooner or later anyway and all that time and money is gone. You take cases you can win. 137768[/snapback] Exactly... That is the bad side Mickey. If you are finacially strapped you better have a slam-dunk. Most of the time the up in the air cases can't go. In our case, that is where the agency can make out because they have a "deeper pocket." You got to make sure you do your homework. Sometimes knowing this, the other party gets sloppy. Find the sloppiness, exploit it and you might have a "slam-dunk." ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 29, 2004 Author Share Posted November 29, 2004 I don't know the answers. What I do know is that when a janitor who is 50 years old, uneducated making 30K a year, loses his life due to an honest mistake. The family should not be awarded tens or hundreds of millions in a lawsuit. Figure out what his "salary" and COL for the remaining 30 years of expected work years were, "some" pain and suffering and move on. In this case 1.5 million would be the cap, IMHO. The probably is this is realistic but everyone wants the BIG payday, rather then understanding anyone can make a mistake. You make them pay, but without corrupting the system, healthcare and insurance companies to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Loser pays is not the American way. The law is purposefully set up so that the commoner can afford to bring a lawsuit against wealth and corporations. It's not an accident that the law was structured that way. In a loser pays system, small people lose access to the courts. The courts have tons of power to sanction frivilous lawsuits. Judges just never use that power. 137799[/snapback] Fine, I agree. However, I’m sure our system wasn’t designed to make lawyers rich. So, to stop the abuse we must then outlaw the practice of contingency (as a percentage of the judgement) fees for attorneys. Since the 'common man' in many of these big lawsuits doesn't pay the attorney anything (except a large % of the win), let's put the onus on the lawyers and not allow them to play lotto with the legal system (and the taxpayers' money). Thus, the lawyer gets his $250 and hour, no matter how much money his client wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 I don't know the answers. What I do know is that when a janitor who is 50 years old, uneducated making 30K a year, loses his life due to an honest mistake. The family should not be awarded tens or hundreds of millions in a lawsuit. Figure out what his "salary" and COL for the remaining 30 years of expected work years were, "some" pain and suffering and move on. In this case 1.5 million would be the cap, IMHO. The probably is this is realistic but everyone wants the BIG payday, rather then understanding anyone can make a mistake. You make them pay, but without corrupting the system, healthcare and insurance companies to do it. 137832[/snapback] What does a janitor, 50 years old, and uneducated have to do with it? Your answer hints of how Ford refused to fix the Pinto. Why not do the cost analysis... After that, send the guy down the ditch... If he doesn't come back... Who cares? We make more in the long run! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 for the next term. When is he going to get some congressman to sponser legislation to put some limits on medical malpractice lawsuits. I want to see them high enough to really help those in need, but low enough to help control or lower health care costs. Also part of this should be penalties for ambulance chaser lawyers. 137325[/snapback] Please help me, when you say "I want to see them high enough to really help those in need" what exactly do you mean? Those in need of what????? Money....or health care? You are vague at best and nonesensical at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 29, 2004 Author Share Posted November 29, 2004 What does a janitor, 50 years old, and uneducated have to do with it? Your answer hints of how Ford refused to fix the Pinto. Why not do the cost analysis... After that, send the guy down the ditch... If he doesn't come back... Who cares? We make more in the long run! 137874[/snapback] And why should a family of someone who is a janitor and uneducated make as much as a rocket scientist who is 30 and making a million per year. Yes, because of these lawsuits a value needs to be put on human life. Unfortunately a 50 year old uneducated janitor is not worth as much. Reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 29, 2004 Author Share Posted November 29, 2004 Please help me, when you say "I want to see them high enough to really help those in need" what exactly do you mean? Those in need of what????? Money....or health care? You are vague at best and nonesensical at least. 137883[/snapback] I am vague, because I realize something needs to be done, but smart enough to know I don't know what the limits should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 And why should a family of someone who is a janitor and uneducated make as much as a rocket scientist who is 30 and making a million per year. Yes, because of these lawsuits a value needs to be put on human life. Unfortunately a 50 year old uneducated janitor is not worth as much. Reality. 137885[/snapback] No it doesn't... Just means that the powers that be have to be a little more "on" when it comes to respecting human life. It is not about the family making the money... It more about the responsible person (the one that screwed up) being punished for their lack of regard to human life. With limits, there would be no regard for human life. Everything could be calculated and weighed against the big picture. So then by your logic... A grunt fresh out of high school with no real education opportunities is not worth much either? What keeps the system in check from just using people as fodder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 29, 2004 Author Share Posted November 29, 2004 No it doesn't... Just means that the powers that be have to be a little more "on" when it comes to respecting human life. It is not about the family making the money... It more about the responsible person (the one that screwed up) being punished for their lack of regard to human life. With limits, there would be no regard for human life. Everything could be calculated and weighed against the big picture. So then by you logic... A grunt fresh out of high school with no real education opportunities is not worth much either? What keeps the system in check from just using people as fodder? 137905[/snapback] So you're for letting there be no cap, get what you can, based on the jury and judge and keep getting more if possible. Who cares if it drives everyones health insurance through the roof and noone can afford it, or doctors stop practicing, becuase they can't and won't deal with it. You know a lot of doctors who really care and have done a lot of good have retired because they can't or wont pay the malpractice rates. These rates are through the roof because of the get what you can attitude. Health insurance would be affordable and practical for more people to get if a "value" was placed on people. BTW, a "hugh school" graduate would have lots of potential and would prbably be highly rewarded under my scenerio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Fine, I agree. However, I’m sure our system wasn’t designed to make lawyers rich. So, to stop the abuse we must then outlaw the practice of contingency (as a percentage of the judgement) fees for attorneys. Since the 'common man' in many of these big lawsuits doesn't pay the attorney anything (except a large % of the win), let's put the onus on the lawyers and not allow them to play lotto with the legal system (and the taxpayers' money). Thus, the lawyer gets his $250 and hour, no matter how much money his client wins. 137847[/snapback] Most states have a limit on what an attorney gets in a contingency case. My firm doesn't do contingency work, so I can't quote the PA number exactly, but I think it's in the 33% range. I worry whenever the government gets in the middle of people's right to contract. If someone wants to enter a contingency arrangement with their lawyer, so be it. Like VA, though, I worry about the insurance/med mal system. I don't see an easy way out, and my gut is usually against any solution that requires more government oversight and/or control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Most states have a limit on what an attorney gets in a contingency case. My firm doesn't do contingency work, so I can't quote the PA number exactly, but I think it's in the 33% range. I worry whenever the government gets in the middle of people's right to contract. If someone wants to enter a contingency arrangement with their lawyer, so be it. Like VA, though, I worry about the insurance/med mal system. I don't see an easy way out, and my gut is usually against any solution that requires more government oversight and/or control. 138053[/snapback] Oh, I am too (in regards to your second paragraph), just arguing the point. 33% is way too high, too much incentive to chase the ambulence. Any decision involves weighing risks v. benefits. If the benefit was only 5%-10%, I suspect the lawyer would have to adjust his 'risk' tolerance and only take cases that appeared to be valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts