Replies

The proposed cap is for non-economic damages. The case you outline seems to be for economic damages, namely the huge cost of care you will incur in helping your daughter live a normal life. I wish you and yours the best and you will be in my prayers.

She is not in a wheel-chair. She can run, walk, ride a bike, swim like a regular 6 year old. She has severe speech problems, but at this time they don't know if she will be able to go to college or not. If she was in a wheel-chair we would have a case.

If she was mentally retarted, we would have a case. Her IQ is 90 (low average). Of course, my son's IQ is over 130.

There are also risks about who actually caused the damage. The neurologist can't agree. She is unusual. She has lots of damage and they don't know why she isn't in a wheel chair. They say that the insult that she had to her brain should have killed her, but it didn't. Every neurologist has a different opinion.

They just all agree the doctors screwed up 2 times, she had seizures as a result of the screw ups.

The proposed cap is for non-economic damages.

That needs repeating as often as possible. Watch for the leftists, Nader's "Citizen's Action", and the like to try to spin this every which way they can to make it look like the right to sue is being removed. It isn't.