You seem to take a lot of notice of genital cases. The premise being--there's not enough money out there to compensate for this man's loss. Ergo, the sky's the limit? Quantifying this sort of loss is impossible, but I remain to assert that the best possible outcome is to keep the insurance alive for injured patients, rather than provide capricious, emotion-driven bonanzas that will kill insurance for all injured patients.
I've just endured a long conversation with a lawyer who wouldn't address what I regard as the most important issue in the malpractice debate--won't you please give it a whirl?
What would happen to this guy if there would have been no insurance at all? This is no chimera--I can point you to a new trend emerging in "going bare."
Would you have taken his case if there had been no insurance, and you had reason to believe that efforts had been made to make assets very hard to obtain?
Lawyers who care about the little guy ought to steward the insurance, plain and simple. And even if they only care about their hefty share of the settlement, they still ought to steward the insurance.
Its kind of annoying having to deal with constantly defending attachments, garnishments and asset exams - and eventually, the location of those assets slips loose.