[sinkspur]

A dramatic reduction in the number of malpractice lawsuits in Texas thanks to the efforts of Rick Perry in 2003.

Along with the six extra GOP seats due to redistricting, and the property tax cut, Perry delivers on his promises.

How much is this tort reform bill worth to the average Texan, especially to those who need the ready availability of obstetricians?

[DeweyCA]

Anybody who says that there is no difference between the Dems and the Pubbies doesn't know what he is talking about.

[Dane]

The democrats worst nightmare, since the tort lawyers are one of their biggest donor groups.

[Publius6961]

How utterly depressing!

I shall be really bummed out for about ummmmmmmmm.... six seconds?

[SF Republican]

Those stats at the end look good:
The number of medical malpractice lawsuits filed in Dallas and Tarrant (Ft Worth) counties jumped before Texas tort reform was enacted in 2003. But the number of cases filed here and across the state have declined to only a fraction since.

2001 Tarrant: 158 Dallas: 487

2002 Tarrant: 166 Dallas: 536

2003 Tarrant: 337 Dallas: 1,108

2004: Tarrant: 55 Dallas: 142

2005: Tarrant: 60 Dallas: NA

2006 Tarrant: 38 Dallas NA

[basil]

Ping

[Orange1998]

How much is this tort reform bill worth to the average Texan, especially to those who need the ready availability of obstetricians?

Perry is full of false promises. Tort reform yeah we are all for it. What we got was doctors pocketing the money instead of passing saving along. Property Tax Reform - yeah we are all for it. What we got was teacher pay raises and no tax reduction to speak of. Perry will win re election only because he is the lesser of 2 evils.

[Orange1998]

Perry is full of false promises.

Tort reform yeah we are all for it. What we got was doctors pocketing the money instead of passing saving along.

Property Tax Reform - yeah we are all for it. What we got was teacher pay raises and no tax reduction to speak of.

Perry will win re election only because he is the lesser of 2 evils.

[AmericaUnited]

Hmmm... this looks like a good thread to post these oldies but goodies of actual exchanges during court malpractice suits...:

Q: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
A: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.

Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time?
A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy.

Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for breathing?
A: No.
Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
A: No.
Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Q: But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?
A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.

[Tribune7]

ping

[willk]

We have a law firm that advertises on talk radio all the time here in Sacramento. In a take off of "You Make the Call" they tell a ridiculous lawsuit story and ask truth or fiction? For example: A woman gets mad at her boyfriend and throws her drink on him. As she storms off she slips on the remains of the drink on the floor and sues the restaurant. Truth or fiction? At the end of the ad the narriator says "fiction...this is an urban myth". The whole idea, of course, is to give the impression there really is no such thing as a ridiculous lawsuit. I wonder if this is something other law firms are doing throughout the USA now. I've always hated lawyers. The Democrats support of trial lawyers is what turned me towards becoming a Republican. Now I hate those in the media even more (they do more damage to the country) but trial layers are a close second.