Replies

The scenario you describe is a miniscule percentage of the "malpractice" actions. It would certainly call for punitive damages, BTW, as well. A much more typical case is the child, whose doctor did everything he could, that suffers a serious result from illness or injury. The parents are solicited by an attorney. The parents are convinced to sue the doctor, "Since he won't pay anyway, the insurance company will. Nothing personal, you understand.". And the insurance company does settle because the cost of litigation exceeds the the amount of settlement. The attorney gets 30-50% of the settlement.

Bush is right on this one and I applaud him for it.

Regards.

A much more typical case is the child, whose doctor did everything he could, that suffers a serious result from illness or injury. The parents are solicited by an attorney. The parents are convinced to sue the doctor, "Since he won't pay anyway, the insurance company will. Nothing personal, you understand.". And the insurance company does settle because the cost of litigation exceeds the the amount of settlement. The attorney gets 30-50% of the settlement.

Your attitude is so typical of FReepers...actually, your "typical case" is atypical. In medmal cases, parents are not "talked into" suing....wanna know why? Because medmal cases are very, very, very expensive to work up and try...$25k for the smallest of them. As a plaintiff lawyer, I routinely rejected cases that I valued under $100k...to much risk, not enough reward....if I am putting up $25k of my money, I want reasonable assurances that I will make some money back.

Here in PA, an insurance company can not settle without consent of the doctors, so small cases are tried at exorbant costs.

And I still do not see why FReepers are so hung up on contingent fee agreements. First, it is bargained for....if you don't want to pay that much, then find a lawyer that will charge less (just remember, you get what you pay for). Second, the fee is not that much when you figure that the lawyer has the most at risk going into trial.

Tort reform is not a "conservative" position.....tort reform exists in the courts with judges and juries...they are merely doing what the Founding Fathers have told them to do. Having government step in to "protect" the insurance companies is just absurd.