Bush: $250,000 Cap Needed For Medical Malpractice Suits

I heartily disagree with your assertion that civil attorneys are accessories to theft in civil cases. During the voir dire process attorneys on both sides attempt to 'stack' the jury with people whom they perceive might be biased in favor of their client. Criminal attorneys do the same. That does not make them accessories to crimes their clients have been charged with. That's the way the adversarial system works. I can offer no suggestions on how to change it.

The reason that I profess that an attorney would be an accessory to a crime in a civil case (and I don't mean any civil case; I mean a case where excessive punative damages were rewarded) is that most attorneys aren't concerned with justice as much as with winning. In other words, if an attorney helped create the impression among jurors that a client was so negligent as to require paying an award that far outstrips the "crime", then that attorney is an accessory of robbing that defendant to the extent that the punishment exceeded the crime.

As for the jury selection process, it is a game at best. I'd almost be willing to give up the voir dire process altogether. But that misses the point again. I used the process of selection to illustrate how easy it is to have a pre-biased jury. And, keep in mind that even 1 frivalous win out of 1000 cases can set precident for the future. Look at all the false asbestos claims.

Serving on a civil jury, I would never award a plaintiff money with lung cancer for smoking cigarettes. That connection has long been established and he/she who smokes assumes the risk. Nor would I award anyone *any* money who claimed to have become obese by eating fast food. That's prepostrous! Again, that's an assumed risk on the part of the person who consumes fast food.

I beleive that we agree on those issues. I would say the same about guns (unless they blow up in the shooter's face), cars, and many other such things that carry obvious risks.

I still maintain my assertion that capping *punitive* damages at $250,000 against a negligent doctor is merely a slap on the wrist. That's no incentive for a physician to "clean up his act." It simply gets him off the hook to go out and do it again to someone else. My issue began with *punitive* damages and will end there as well. I've exhausted all my arguments and expected to change no minds. My thanks to the posters who engaged me with civil conversation rather than resorting to the tatic of "shooting the messenger."

The problem isn't punishment for malpractice; its punishment way beyond what is reasonable by a system of lawyers that have no oversight. As well, we have the entire country paying for this lottery. If there were a good connection between punishment and crime, I'd agree. But there isn't. Nowhere else can someone be made destitute based on a potentially misled group of preselected people when no crime has been committed. Nowhere but in the American court system.

Civil court is broken. One cannot expect a small majority of a group of emotional, uninformed people to make decisions of guilt when they are continually being misled by "expert" witnesses. Justice isn't being served. If it were up to me, only criminal court would be allowed to deal with punishment. Short of that, limiting "punitive" damages is the next best thing.

I appreciate your civility as well. This is a hot issue and I did jump in with both feet. It is because I feel strongly about it, not only on the malpractice side of things, but on the many other issues that surround tort as well.

If the doctors trash your health, economic damages will take care of you. What is happening, however, is that punitive damages are like hitting the lottery to the rest of your family.

Hi, sinkspur.

What you said doesn't sound anything like my understanding of economic vs. punitive damages.

Economic damages are to make up for lost wages, the extra cost of the special van and bed for you, possibly a nurse, things like that.

Punitive damages are to punish the perp, and account for the seriousness of the harm that was caused.

This where the jury gets to consider how despicable something was. This is where you get paid for the fact that you would rather be able to dance and have sex than have a free van and wheelchair.

This is where you get paid for the fact that it really trashed your marriage when you and your wife found out that the doctor snuck and impregnated her with his own sperm instead of yours.

If you go by economic damages, all you get is the cost of an abortion and any cribs and things you might have already bought. To get money through economic damages for someting like that, the victim would have to claim that the stress made it impossible to work, needed high-dollar therapy, etc ...

I don't think someone should have to go through all that to win a sizeable judgement for a horrible act. They shouldn't have to perpetrate a fraud to get back at a monster or kooky con-artist for ruining their lives.

Who else in our country gets that kind of protection? No matter what they do to you or how despicably they do it, they never owe you more than the money out of your pocket + $250,000? Doctor: "Cool! One in every 50 patients, I can do anything I want to them and I will always turn a profit!"

The multimillion-dollar awards don't go to people who say, "Oh, after my cosmetic surgery one of my nostrils was a half a millimeter smaller than the other! It was horrible!"

They go to people who's daughter died because the doctor was drunk. Or who came in to have a cyst removed but accidentally got a mastectomy instead. Or because the hospital refused emergency treatment for economic, rather than medical reasons.

If he wants to stop friends and family from suing, Bush should propose that a doctor's liability be limited specifically and directly to the patient.

Actually, Einstein

Okay, I'm disabling my web-cam now. How did you do that, anyway?

And things are only getting worse...

The medical industry is, has been, and will continue to be a strong, stable growth industry, no matter what becomes od this.

a close neighbor of reality.

Speaking of my neighborhood, is it just me, or is there a doctor on every block in Liexington County, SC? And more than one on some blocks!

Our local county hospital now has one of these "Urget Care" facilities within a few miles of every subdivision in the county! Not to mention all of the "PA" and "Doctors Care" places. Jut what exactly is "Gastroenterology," anyway? And how can someone with such an obscure specialty afford to drive a mercedes with gold-plated bumpers to work?

I don't get paid by the insurance industry, so it doesn't make sense to me how we say that these rich guys with these great offices are going broke.

re: Or because the hospital refused emergency treatment for economic, rather than medical reasons. ))) BS. Double BS. If this happens, show me where. There's COBRA and EMTALA up the wazoo.

I didn't say it was common, and I'll admit I haven't heard of it happenning in more than 20 years. The one I remember was a chainsaw accident to the leg, and the guy had no ID, and the specific hospital that I mentioned in another post as having recently expanded with all of these mini-medical centers told him to go to the other hospital downtown. He bled to death. It was all over the news at the time. But it doesn't really have to have happenned, the fact is that if it did, the hospital wouldn't even be out a day's income by this law.

Now, I am not saying doctors are generally monsters, but why should we say that no matter what they do it can't be any worse than cash-out-of-pocket + $250,000?

A ditch-digger doesn't get than kind of protection from liability, and he makes less money doing a less mission-critical job.

I noticed you didn't comment about any of the other situations described in that post.

Anyway, I think the death rate will go down where doctors go on strike, just like it did in LA when I was a kid. Is anyone familiar with that little episode?

But if PA is having an economic crisis, maybe its because of the insurance laws there. If they are legally forced to carry malpractice insurance, but the companies' profits from malpractice insurance aren't regulated, then you can assume the insurance companies are gouging.

the hospital wouldn't even be out a day's income by this law.

I don't know if Bush's proposal would apply to hospitals, and I don't know what his punitive damage limit would be. The lead article is unclear on this.

I do know that several federal laws apply to the situation that you describe. If your description is accurate, heavy fines and possibly jail time would result to those responsible.

Since you believe that the people of Pennsylvania would be better off without doctors there is no reason to think that you have any interest in improving the tort situation as pertains to "malpractice". Next time you are ill, be sure and contact your attorney. Better yet, if for any reason you ever decide to consult a physician, please be honest enough to let him or her know your opinion of his profession so that he might take the proper precautions.

Regards.

Denial of emergency care is the biggest Urban (or rural) legend in the country. Everyone cites it as if it was common, but if you accuse a hospital of doing this, keep in mind that you are accusing its administration and ER management of committing a crime, and they wouldn't take that lying down. Your area hospital is a good one, and wouldn't appreciate being accused of such a thing. South Carolina and North Carolina have excellent health care and excellent indigent care...part of that reason is that hospitals can attract some powerfully good medical personnel because the legal climate remains sensible...at least for the moment.

Fact is, your average emergency room only collects forty percent of its charges. It sees all comers. Generally, it treats all comers, too, whether they are emergencies or not. Every night, nurses have to fend off those seeking narcotics. Everynight, they put drunks and idiots back together again, start the stopped hearts. Nuthin' better than those nurses and docs and PAs waiting for disasters at three in the morning...and they have no reason to turn anyone away. I don't appreciate any suggestion that they would.

Believe me, if the trauma surgeons go on strike, the death rate will not go down. The instances you cite of death rates declining have to do with normal adverse outcomes of elective surgeries and playing with stats. Many heart surgeries are done to ameliorate pain, not to cure, but those surgeries come with a risk. When in constant pain, what would you risk to be out of it?

Everyone cites it as if it was common, but if you accuse a hospital of doing this ...

I did not say it was common, and I said the only instance I had ever heard about was 20+ years ago.

I understand that we have good indigent care, NOW. I don't think that is a significant problem. I think economics might come into play when hospitals understaff, or when OBs induce labor so they can be sure they have the weekend off, etc...

But I don't think economics is the primary reason for malpractice. I think it is negligence, incompetence and the occasional drugged or crazy healthcare professional.

And I don't see why those sorts of people should be shielded from liability for what they do. Everyone else has to risk that kind of loss when they undertake to serve someone's needs for money. An extension ladder only costs $200-$300. But if the ladder manufacturer makes a defective one and a customer winds up paralyzed, you can bet they will be out millions. Now, a comparable ladder could be made and sold for $50, but those are cheap ladders. Companies who did that in the past wound up with big lawsuits because of the accidents that happenned when the ladder couldn't hold the weight they were supposed to, or the metal was too soft, or whatever. So a ladder costs $200-300, because that's what it takes to make a SAFE ladder.

Now doctors want it to be safe and profitable for themselves to make $50 ladders.

They want it to be safe to "medicate" themselves through 16-hour shifts. They want it to be safe to hire incompetent staff so they can pay them a lower salary. They want it to be profitable to be incompetent.

If you have your brakes worked on and they put them on wrong to hurry you out the door, then they fail 10 minutes later and your wife and kid die, you get what? The cost of the car, funeral expenses and $250,000?! What if he did it on purpose because he is a sneak and you said something that ticked him off? Or what if the mechanic was drunk. What if the guy had a history of getting drunk, but the company never fired him? Cost + $250,00?!?!? You know you would deserve more, expect more, demand more. And you would get more.

But apparently we expect more form our mechanics than our docors.

First of all, as you *well* know, the quarter mil limit is for non-econ damages. It's in the header article and in several of the preceding posts of this thread.

You threw away that line about emergency personnel doing "wallet biopsies" as if it was common. It is a barefaced insult to emergency personnel, and an accusation of a crime. I'm glad to hear that you don't really think so. The only instance that I actually know of involved a pneumonia case in Roanoke some forty years ago. I suppose I could throw that in...but it'd be about as silly as a chain-saw case of dubious parentage, right?

As for holding mechanics accountable, just try doing it. Unless the mechanic has really fine insurance and the damage is catastrophic (big bucks), you won't really find justice. De facto, no real accountability. The docs and hospitals aren't just paying higher premiums, they are losing coverage altogether. Your appeals to injuries won't butter any parsnips when there isn't any insurance left. I suggest we put some limits on damages so that injured people can continue to be compensated, but not made into Powerball winners.

I happen to know of a judge who has done irreperable harm to a child because that judge denied her black-letter legal rights. Does the child get to sue the judge? There are few people in a more powerful position to ruin lives through incompetence than judges, yet we allow them complete immunity from liability. Yet the world still turns round.

First of all, as you *well* know, the quarter mil limit is for non-econ damages.

Of course I know it, and I have said it, and gone into detail in other posts regarding the differeces between economic, pain-and-sufferring, and punitive damages.

When you post without context(like the italics above) it makes it difficult for me to understand where you got the misconception that you seem to have.

The only instance that I actually know of involved a pneumonia case in Roanoke some forty years ago. I suppose I could throw that in...but it'd be about as silly as a chain-saw case of dubious parentage, right?

Maybe I should do research before I post anything at all, but I was being candid, and that's all I really have time for. I am not paid for this, you know.

As for holding mechanics accountable, just try doing it. Unless the mechanic has really fine insurance and the damage is catastrophic (big bucks), you won't really find justice.

You can and people do all the time. Obviously, you can't get anymore money than the company has in the first place. You can garnish future income if it was an individual.

Your appeals to injuries won't butter any parsnips when there isn't any insurance left.

I live in South Carolina. We don't have this problem of doctors who can't afford to practice. I find it difficult to believe that doctors here are incredibly much better than the docs in PA. If malpractice rates are high in PA, maybe they need a good Department of Insurance to examine the actuarial work and accounting behind the policies they are writing.

While I have been busy with indignation about the IDEA of sheltering rich people from paying for tha damage they cause, I have neglected to express my opinion the the "crisis" has nothing to do with doctors, lawyers, or patients. The problem is the insurance companies. If doctors are required to carry malpractice insurance, but the insurance companies are not closely scrutinized and regulated, they will gouge all they can, knowing that you can't legally do business without them.

I'm aware of situations in the Southeast. South Carolina is a conservative state which faces no crisis as yet, though premiums have tripled in ten years. A crisis will come and will hurt the local nonprofit hospitals first and hardest. At present, you are enjoying something very nice in your state and the Lexington area--docs from all over the country are trying to relocate there for many reasons, but one is the malpractice climate. This means that medical care will be plentiful in your state for a while. Example: when a orthopod group needs a new member, it has a wide choice and can go for the best--someone from Michigan, maybe, or Massachusetts with the high grades and wide experience. This is a market advantage you enjoy, but are not aware of, as a consumer. It is fragile, and the state can easily chase away its good docs like Florida.

This is kind of a sleeper, but you probably are also not aware that patients enjoy a very high quality of care and low death rates for average medical prices n NC and SC. Compare to Georgia and Florida. Like I said, this fact is a sleeper...wish it was out there more. ...

Going after the income of an individual who has injured you through poor mechanics is practical mostly in theory. Likely you'll have to delve through corporate vehicles or try to chase after someone who moves around. See how many lawyers want that headache for what they can get.

The insurance companies may or may not be in trouble due to bad investments. I don't see how that is relevant if they decide to stop writing policies altogether and doctors either must quit or the hospitals start allowing them to go "bare". At that point, your injuries go essentially uncovered , even the Dangerous Doctor Demoral the Deadly Drug Addict of your fantasies. The golden goose is just as dead either way, and all the sad stories of injuries will be just as relevant as the child I know whose life has been ruined by the stupid, drunken, incompetent judge who has total immunity from liability.

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.