Tygod suing the doctor who hastened Herbert’s ascension

[BarleyNY]

53 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

 I meant instead of a settlement it will likely be a loss for Taylor.  Meaning no money.

 

Gotcha.

[BarleyNY]

47 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

What makes you say this?  

 

Also, it is the Plaintiff's lawyer that pushes for a settlement.  They know that 75% of verdicts find for the defendant. 

 

Settlements can benefit either or both sides. Often plaintiffs want a settlement because it gives them a known amount of money. Similarly a settlement limits the financial damages of the defendant. This claim would be covered by malpractice insurance and insurance companies almost never want to go to trial. Plenty of discussion about this up thread. 

 

52 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

A settlement is always a loss for the Defendant.

 

Depends what you mean by a loss. In a suit with obvious merit, a defendant can settle on an agreed amount. That protects them from a catastrophic award. IMO that’s not really a loss for the defendant as they have an obligation to compensate someone they harmed. Even nuisance suits are often settled because defending them would be more costly than paying a small sum of money. While it usually sucks to see money paid out in cases like this, it’s not much of a loss. 

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

 

Settlements can benefit either or both sides. Often plaintiffs want a settlement because it gives them a known amount of money. Similarly a settlement limits the financial damages of the defendant. This claim would be covered by malpractice insurance and insurance companies almost never want to go to trial. Plenty of discussion about this up thread. 

 

 

Depends what you mean by a loss. In a suit with obvious merit, a defendant can settle on an agreed amount. That protects them from a catastrophic award. IMO that’s not really a loss for the defendant as they have an obligation to compensate someone they harmed. Even nuisance suits are often settled because defending them would be more costly than paying a small sum of money. While it usually sucks to see money paid out in cases like this, it’s not much of a loss. 

 

Bolded is not true.  If an insurer is not making an offer, they believe they have a strong, defendable case and they absolutely want to go to trial as the odds overwhelmingly favor a verdict for the defendant.  This was covered upthread.

 

The defendant has no say in the settlement negotiations--his/her insurer makes all of those decisions.  If there is a settlement, the defendant is reported in the national practitioners database.  That's always "a loss".

[BarleyNY]

40 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Bolded is not true.  If an insurer is not making an offer, they believe they have a strong, defendable case and they absolutely want to go to trial as the odds overwhelmingly favor a verdict for the defendant.  This was covered upthread.

 

The defendant has no say in the settlement negotiations--his/her insurer makes all of those decisions.  If there is a settlement, the defendant is reported in the national practitioners database.  That's always "a loss".

 

I worked in the insurance industry for a bit and you are 100% wrong about cases going to trial. Insurers almost never allow that. For example, it is so rare for auto related personal injury cases to go to trial that the largest and most well known PI firms don’t even litigate them anymore. They farm them out. lawyers on both sides know what almost all of the cases are worth.

 

You are largely correct that insureds don’t have a say in the handling of a case. The exception is if an aspect falls outside of coverage.

 

Regarding whether something is considered “a loss” did you mean an insurance loss? If so, then yes, that’s correct. I thought you meant it in a win/loss way. 

[Augie]

11 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

 

I worked in the insurance industry for a bit and you are 100% wrong about cases going to trial. Insurers almost never allow that. For example, it is so rare for auto related personal injury cases to go to trial that the largest and most well known PI firms don’t even litigate them anymore. They farm them out. lawyers on both sides know what almost all of the cases are worth.

 

You are largely correct that insureds don’t have a say in the handling of a case. The exception is if an aspect falls outside of coverage.

 

Regarding whether something is considered “a loss” did you mean an insurance loss? If so, then yes, that’s correct. I thought you meant it in a win/loss way. 

 

Not directly related, but my father in law was a dentist for many decades. He never had a claim against him until late in his career when a long time patient had a complaint. Small town, everyone knew this lady and what was up. The FIL wanted to fight it because he had no doubt he was right. The insurance company said after all these decades with no malpractice claims, we’ll just pay a small amount to make it go away. It broke his heart. That’s the other kind of loss. 

[BarleyNY]

39 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Not directly related, but my father in law was a dentist for many decades. He never had a claim against him until late in his career when a long time patient had a complaint. Small town, everyone knew this lady and what was up. The FIL wanted to fight it because he had no doubt he was right. The insurance company said after all these decades with no malpractice claims, we’ll just pay a small amount to make it go away. It broke his heart. That’s the other kind of loss. 

 

I’m sorry. That really sucks and it is very common.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, BarleyNY said:

 

I worked in the insurance industry for a bit and you are 100% wrong about cases going to trial. Insurers almost never allow that. For example, it is so rare for auto related personal injury cases to go to trial that the largest and most well known PI firms don’t even litigate them anymore. They farm them out. lawyers on both sides know what almost all of the cases are worth.

 

You are largely correct that insureds don’t have a say in the handling of a case. The exception is if an aspect falls outside of coverage.

 

Regarding whether something is considered “a loss” did you mean an insurance loss? If so, then yes, that’s correct. I thought you meant it in a win/loss way. 

 

Med-Mal isn't like auto related injury.  The fault of one driver or another is usually pretty straightforward.

 

You're wrong about insurers and med-mal cases.  They will absolutely go to court if they believe they have a defendable/winnable case---and the data clearly support this decision..  I have served as an expert witness for the defense on multiple occasions and all but one went to court.  Every jury found for the defendant(s).

 

The obvious "loss" for the defendant in a settled case is time spent defending the case, negative notoriety and a back mark in the National database.  The insurance company isn't losing on a payout....their premiums guarantee they will be profitable.

 

Edited August 5, 2023 by Mr. WEO

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

Geez, Herbert could probably cover the claim out of his petty cash after that latest contract.

*
And the Spanos family has offered one free box lunch per week to atone for any role they might have had in exacerbating Tyrod's condition.

[BarleyNY]

16 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Med-Mal isn't like auto related injury.  The fault of one driver or another is usually pretty straightforward.

 

You're wrong about insurers and med-mal cases.  They will absolutely go to court if they believe they have a defendable/winnable case---and the data clearly support this decision..  I have served as an expert witness for the defense on multiple occasions and all but one went to court.  Every jury found for the defendant(s).

 

The obvious "loss" for the defendant in a settled case is time spent defending the case, negative notoriety and a back mark in the National database.  The insurance company isn't losing on a payout....their premiums guarantee they will be profitable.

 

 

Estimates I’ve seen even in med mal, which I was not involved in, were still at 90% settled out of court. Those are the numbers. I’ll leave it there. 

[Mr. WEO]

5 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

 

Estimates I’ve seen even in med mal, which I was not involved in, were still at 90% settled out of court. Those are the numbers. I’ll leave it there. 

 

 

Most cases aren't very defensible because it was not standard of  care that the plaintiff got (or actually bad care), so they settle. You said they almost never go to court.  I told you when they go to court and why.   I have 10 cases I'm currently reviewing.  7 are in discovery and 3 are headed to trial.

 

If the insurer thinks it's a solid case, they go to court because odds are they win.  The plaintiff's bar's dilemma is that the plaintiff can refuse any settlement and demand to go to court--even if their case is a total dog.  

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Most cases aren't very defensible because it was not standard of  care that the plaintiff got (or actually bad care), so they settle. You said they almost never go to court.  I told you when they go to court and why.   I have 10 cases I'm currently reviewing.  7 are in discovery and 3 are headed to trial.

 

If the insurer thinks it's a solid case, they go to court because odds are they win.  The plaintiff's bar's dilemma is that the plaintiff can refuse any settlement and demand to go to court--even if their case is a total dog.  

What a gig

[Mr. WEO]

12 hours ago, FireChans said:

What a gig

 

it's not bad.  only defense work though.  Plaintiff's medical experts have no souls.