Besides Pennsyvania, West Virginia (#49) and Mississippi (#50) are the poorest, most corrupt, and most 3rd World of all 50 states, yet have many of the richest lawyers. Mississippi judges get huge "loans" and oceanfront condos from the crooked trial lawyers. The attorney industry (read democrat party) basically runs both states as their medieval fiefdoms. (see linked newspaper articles at www.Overlawyered.com )
The trauma care, emergency surgical, and obstetrical physicians in all 3 states (plus Clark County, Nevada---Las Vegas) are being driven out of business due to massive malpractice premiums they cannot afford. There is no meaningful trauma care in most of both states. The obstetricians in particular have been run out of town by the lawyer industry, becoming economic refugees to other states less benighted than the pathetic, corrupt West Virginia and Mississippi backwaters. Healthcare in WV and 'Ol Miss (already the worst of all 50 states) is detreriorating rapidly due to the multi-millionire greed of the shysters.
The dirty little secret of medical liability insurance is that only 30% of the premiums go to (allegedly) injured plaintiffs. The trial lawyers get their 30-40% of course. But the costs of the DEFENSE attorneys is equal to the payouts to the plaintiffs attorneys!!
God forbid the pathetic excuses for governors in Pennsylvania, WV, and Mississippi would enact authentic tort reform to lower the income of their lawyer buddies.
The democrats will enrich themselves (or at least their trial lawyer constituency), destroy the trauma and obstetrical system, and have the SHAMELESS gall to demand a federal takeover and universal health system to "correct" the non-functional, lawyer-ravaged system. I am absoluely convinced this will be lawyer-politician Hillary's agenda when the time comes.
I think that the trial lawyers are only too happy to be a part of the democrat effort to destroy the health care system, so that the democrats will then trot themselves out of the shadows to claim to be saviors!. I strongly believe that national health care will be the cornerstone to a Hillary Clinton campaign!!
One maddening thing (for the docs) about the med malpractice industry is that the suits and payouts generally bear no relationship to competence. Thus doctors who agree see the most high risk (sickest) patients are the most likely to be sued. Very sick patients are more likely to have adverse outcomes. Another example is the gold mine (for crooked lawyers) who make mega-bucks off of neurosurgeons (brain injury almost always has some residual brain damage, by definition) and obstetricans (congenital blameless birth defects equals lawyer yachts and French Riviera condos).
My recommendations for this problem and for the unregulated lawyer plague that damages all of our lives in so many ways? The world would be a better place with:
1) Loser Pays.
2) Massive tort reform on a unprecedented level
3) Widespread empowerment of paralegals for independent practice
4) An end to punitive damages.
5) An end to bogus class action suits.
6) Outlawing contingency fees.
7) Lawyers forbidden from running from office. They are agents of the judiciary.
8) Most important: a total disempowerment of the bar associations. Lawyer discipline by true consumer control. Like any other industry.
proposed aid package that would reduce doctors' insurance payments by $220 million in 2003.
Thereby simply shifting costs from one pocket to another and avoiding any consideration of the cause of this mess.
1) Loser Pays.
I agree wholeheartedly!
2) Massive tort reform on a unprecedented level
How about replacing "preponderance of evidence" with "reasonable doubt" for starters. And, stop preventing the defendant from fully arguing their case (as in the GM Malibu gas tank case in Florida where GM couldn't present all its defending evidence).
3) Widespread empowerment of paralegals for independent practice
There's lots of things a paralegal should be able to do such as wills, etc.
4) An end to punitive damages.
I most certainly agree - if something is worthy of punishment, it should be made illegal and tried in the criminal justice system.
5) An end to bogus class action suits.
I agree again. Plenty of suits have been filed on behalf of "plaintiffs" (unwitting plaintiffs in many cases) where the plaintiff gains nearly zero reward for the alleged wrongs.
6) Outlawing contingency fees.
I'm not sure if this should be done. I generally accept that 2 parties can contract for whatever payment-for-services method that they want.
7) Lawyers forbidden from running from office. They are agents of the judiciary.
There is an inherent conflict of interest that arises when a lawyer becomes a legislator.
8) Most important: a total disempowerment of the bar associations. Lawyer discipline by true consumer control. Like any other industry.
Yes, the Bar associations have been leaning left for a number of years - they have become political organizations rather than self-policing organizations for lawyers.
The problem with this idea is that many juries find for the plaintiff because they see the defendant as some rich guy who can afford to give to a poor person and who needs the lesson in humility that forking over money would bring. If the jury knew that having to pay for everything would bankrupt the poor plaintiff, it would be even less likely to find for the defendant in a case that could go either way.
I don't know all of the legal terms and practices, but I don't think that "loser pays" should be universal. I would favor something along the lines of every suit including a countersuit. The jury must first decide whether a preponderance of evidence shows that the defendent acted wrongly. If they find this evidence, the defendant pays. If they don't, then they must decide whether there is a preponderance of evidence that the suit never had any merit. If they find that the suit never had any merit, then the plaintiff should pay.
I've always heard that even civil suits should not be decided on a "toss up" basis. If the evidence barely supports one side or the other, the jury is still supposed to decide for the defendant. Civil law greatly lowers the burden of proof for the prosecution/plaintiff, but it shouldn't lower the bar to the point that a 50/50 case goes to the plaintiff.
WFTR
Bill
Getting a bit silly there at the end, pal. This isn't China.