Posted on 07/24/2007 5:22:38 AM PDT by indcons
In what is being called a "wrongful birth" case, a jury awarded more than $21 million to a couple who claimed a doctor misdiagnosed a severe birth defect in their son, leading them to have a second child with similar problems.
But because the doctor works for the University of South Florida, the family will have to persuade the Legislature to award most of the money. State law limits negligence claims against government agencies at $200,000.
Daniel and Amara Estrada, whose two young sons aren't able to communicate and need constant care, sought at least enough money to care for the second child, 2-year-old Caleb.
"This is a severely impaired child who will need a great deal of care for the rest of his life," said Christian Searcy, one of the attorneys who tried the case. He called the award "conservative but fair."
The couple claimed that Dr. Boris Kousseff failed to diagnose their first son's genetic disorder, called Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome, which is the inability to correctly produce or synthesize cholesterol, after his 2002 birth.
Had the disorder been correctly diagnosed, a test would have indicated whether the couple's second child also was afflicted and they would have terminated the pregnancy, according to the lawsuit.
Instead, Kousseff, a specialist in genetic disorders, told them they should be able to have normal children in the future.
The jury decided Monday that Kousseff was 90 percent negligent and that an Orlando doctor not named in the lawsuit was 10 percent at fault.
A USF spokeswoman didn't immediately return a call seeking comment Monday.
Searcy said he would push state lawmakers to pass a bill awarding the Estradas money over the $200,000 cap.
"I believe that this case is so powerful and this tragedy was so preventable and is so poignant, that it is the kind of case that should rise above the fray and rise above party politics," Searcy said.
BS
“Our son is alive. You owe us big time.”
Malpractice is malpractice. So it goes.
“But because the doctor works for the University of South Florida, the family will have to persuade the Legislature to award most of the money.”
Ain’t gonna happen.
So put aside for a second that this is a wrongful birth case and the the University doctor should have informed the parents that due to their genetic mix their second child would inevitably have had birth defects requiring care costing at least $200,000 per year over a 50 year life. I am also taking as an assumption that conservatism has as a foundation principle of acceptance of personal responsibility rather than reliance on the state.
How is tort reform, i.e. putting caps on damages, in any manner conservative? The doctor and hospital are being absolved from the full acceptance of their responsibility. As a result, the care of the child, assuming the parents are not multi-millionaires, will fall to the state in the form of medicaid and social security. Why is it a good thing to create more state dependents?
It primarily benefits Big Business. Duh.
Right! Tort reform is NOT conservative in principle.
Seems to me the kid should be able to sue the parent for supplying him with faulty genes...
susie
“Isn’t this special? Mom and Dad get the big bucks and the taxpayers will still take care of their kids...”
Most parents can’t afford to care for children with severe birth defects so the taxpayer often ends up paying one way or another. The alternative is abortion or to let them die. Which do you prefer?
I prefer not making an ambulance chaser rich in the process. The $200,000 cap is an attempt by the citizens of Florida to prevent this from happening, if at all possible.
“I prefer not making an ambulance chaser rich in the process. The $200,000 cap is an attempt by the citizens of Florida to prevent this from happening, if at all possible.”
I can agree with this part. But the dilemma remains. Either Joe Citizen helps pay for the care of these kids is some form — taxes, higher medical rates, higher insurance rates — or they die. A small percentage of parents can earn enough for the care, but I’d guess it’ a very small percentage.
I should have made it clear, in this case, I do support the family being aided in caring for these children. They shouldn’t have had to fight for it.
And if they spend all that money, the cost of the care of those kids will STILL fall to the taxpayer, cause the money’s alllll gooonnne.
You'd think a genetic specialist would have diagnosed it correctly.
Instead, Kousseff, a specialist in genetic disorders, told them they should be able to have normal children in the future.
And he was right. People with the recessive trait have a 25% chance of having a child with this condition. That's a 75% chance of having a normal child. He didn't lie to them.
Instead of capping lawsuits, which I am not opposed to, they should cap lawyers fees. Blood sucking leeches.....
I would rather see state support for the severely disabled (an affirmation that despite their condition, their lives still have value) than rampant legal settlements.
In the case of a disabled child, *someone* is going to have to pay for the care. If these people ever see their $21 million, how much will the lawyer get? Who protects the child when the parents spend the money foolishly and suddenly don’t have the funds to provide medical care for the disabled child ten years from now?
My point is that the $21 million is NOT going to go to the care of the child. If human nature is any indicator, these people will be driving a brand new Mercedes within a year of receiving their money. If we want to see the child cared for, then we shouldn’t be throwing large sums of money at the parents. Either the state can be held liable for the child’s actual medical expenses or a trust can be set up to pay for them.
I believe tort reform is right because liberals and lawyers like to villify “big business.” They look upon business as a wellspring of settlement money. What they don’t get is that milking business for every cent they can get only hurts the little guys. When that company does it’s accounting and decides that it has to lay off 2,000 people, who wins then? Oh yeah, the lawyers and the idiot who spilled hot coffee in their lap.
In times like these I’m reminded of the family who was rear-ended by a drunk driver going 60 miles an hour. Their car subsequently exploded. In court, they were awarded *billions*. BILLIONS of dollars. Not from the drunk driver, mind you, but from the car company. You see, despite the fact that the gas tank MET OR EXCEEDED FEDERAL SAFETY GUIDELINES, the jury decided that the tank *could* have been built safer. WTF is that? If this family wanted a safer car, they should have bought a Volvo. Anything can be done better, but COST becomes a factor. Now companies are liable for meeting safety guidelines but NOT building a tank?
That’s where we need tort reform.
The libs are dancing around the issue of high health care cost, yet they won’t talk about the real reason it is so high.
aka.....money grubbing lawyers. Tort reform now!!
‘morning, Metmom. How are you? Good to see you online.
This court finds the doctor is not God.
Now, cough up the money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.