Tort Reform Forum

[ravens9111]

Not sure which section this post would go under, but I am curious if anyone was able to catch Stossel last night and the possible impending tort reform? What are your opinions on tort reform and do you think it will pass in the future? What would the implications be on employment in the legal sector if damages become capped? If you missed it last night, I suggest you watch the video and see what I am talking about. It is very interesting to see that there could be another push to cap damages and come out with a "loser pays" system to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

[A'nold]

This pisses me off more than anything else in the legal world. Sure, let's reward the f'ing evil insurance companies and basically punish innocent people that are injured. Sounds like a great plan!

What state are you talking about?

[ravens9111]

This pisses me off more than anything else in the legal world. Sure, let's reward the f'ing evil insurance companies and basically punish innocent people that are injured. Sounds like a great plan!

What state are you talking about?

I can see why this would piss you off. Please explain how the insurance companies are evil?

This would be nationwide. There have been tort reform proposals in the past that have failed to succeed in Congress. I think that could change in the near future. Maybe I am wrong though.

[A'nold]

This pisses me off more than anything else in the legal world. Sure, let's reward the f'ing evil insurance companies and basically punish innocent people that are injured. Sounds like a great plan!

What state are you talking about?

I can see why this would piss you off. Please explain how the insurance companies are evil?

This would be nationwide. There have been tort reform proposals in the past that have failed to succeed in Congress. I think that could change in the near future. Maybe I am wrong though.

This will not happen with a Democrat majority.

[ravens9111]

This pisses me off more than anything else in the legal world. Sure, let's reward the f'ing evil insurance companies and basically punish innocent people that are injured. Sounds like a great plan!

What state are you talking about?

I can see why this would piss you off. Please explain how the insurance companies are evil?

This would be nationwide. There have been tort reform proposals in the past that have failed to succeed in Congress. I think that could change in the near future. Maybe I am wrong though.

This will not happen with a Democrat majority.

That's funny. I thought you might say that. I am just not sure how much longer that majority will hold. I guess we will find out in November.

[A'nold]

This pisses me off more than anything else in the legal world. Sure, let's reward the f'ing evil insurance companies and basically punish innocent people that are injured. Sounds like a great plan!

What state are you talking about?

I can see why this would piss you off. Please explain how the insurance companies are evil?

This would be nationwide. There have been tort reform proposals in the past that have failed to succeed in Congress. I think that could change in the near future. Maybe I am wrong though.

This will not happen with a Democrat majority.

That's funny. I thought you might say that. I am just not sure how much longer that majority will hold. I guess we will find out in November.

Anyone with half a brain easily sees through the insurance lobby's bs. However, those on the extreme right never show that they have half a brain and just follow whatever the party line espouses. The sad thing is that this will absolutely devestate these same people. Lose you daughter because a doctor injects here with rat poison? Here's 50k baby, don't you feel better now?

[dominkay]

However, those on the extreme right never show that they have half a brain and just follow whatever the party line espouses.

Two things! The Republican party is not representative of the "extreme right," just like Democrats are unrepresentative of the extreme left.

Speaking as a member of the extreme right, I oppose tort reform. I don't see how legislative limits on damages could square with a free market principles.

[BunkMoreland]

just another example of trollish Republicans; studies show medmal tort damages only account for like 2% of healthcare costs, and if you abide by the "FREE MARKET" then you should allow for the possibility of your company being exposed to greater liability if it takes greater risk.

[cahesu]

However, those on the extreme right never show that they have half a brain and just follow whatever the party line espouses.

Two things! The Republican party is not representative of the "extreme right," just like Democrats are unrepresentative of the extreme left.

Speaking as a member of the extreme right, I oppose tort reform. I don't see how legislative limits on damages could square with a free market principles.

I found this part interesting. The idea of having tort damages at all implies an inefficiency in the market that needs to be corrected by a governmental agency. We might think of the damages companies inadvertently do to consumers as an externality.

However, I believe a person who has total faith in free markets would argue that in the absence of any potential for tort relief, the potential dangers would be reflected in the pricing scheme based on a rational perception of how dangerous a certain product is. For example, compensation for faulty Toyota accelerators would be found not through the lawsuits of consumers but trough a lower price on all Toyota automobiles.

Thus, I believe capping tort damages comes closer to the free market ideal.

There still exists the issue of efficiency in distribution of damages, of course.

[ravens9111]

Did anyone who replied actually watch the video?

Why should criminals know what their penalties are when committing a crime, but an individual or business have unlimited liability?

Even if a business or individual is sued and no damages are awarded in court, why shouldn't the plaintiff be required to pay their legal fees? Wouldn't this deter frivolous lawsuits?

There are Frivolous Suits filed everyday. I am not saying people should not be "fairly" compensated for harm done to them. People should be compensated for damages. The unlimited liability is a problem, don't you think?

Do these frivolous lawsuits get filed hoping that the defendant will settle out of court? When you are being sued, don't you try to determine the cost of legal fees to try the case and the amount that could be awarded in determining how much to pay out of court? So even if the case has no merit, the plaintiff could still get a nice settlement because the fees to try the case exceed the cost to settle?

[deadpanic]

This pisses me off more than anything else in the legal world. Sure, let's reward the f'ing evil insurance companies and basically punish innocent people that are injured. Sounds like a great plan!

What state are you talking about?

I can see why this would piss you off. Please explain how the insurance companies are evil?

lol, insurance companies are basically a giant legal ponzi scheme.

Here is a good Gerry Spence quote on insurance companies:

"I'd rather trust the Mafia for full, honest protection than the insurance companies."

[nealric]

Why should criminals know what their penalties are when committing a crime, but an individual or business have unlimited liability?

Criminals can still be sued in tort for their crimes. So no, they don't know their penalties. Besides, I would be surprised if most criminals knew about things like the felony murder rule. I'm sure plenty of them are taken by surprise.

And by the same token, tort victims don't know what their damages will be either.

[vamedic03]

Did anyone who replied actually watch the video?

Why should criminals know what their penalties are when committing a crime, but an individual or business have unlimited liability?

Even if a business or individual is sued and no damages are awarded in court, why shouldn't the plaintiff be required to pay their legal fees? Wouldn't this deter frivolous lawsuits?

There are frivolous suits filed everyday. I am not saying people should not be "fairly" compensated for harm done to them. People should be compensated for damages. The unlimited liability is a problem, don't you think?

Do these frivolous lawsuits get filed hoping that the defendant will settle out of court? When you are being sued, don't you try to determine the cost of legal fees to try the case and the amount that could be awarded in determining how much to pay out of court? So even if the case has no merit, the plaintiff could still get a nice settlement because the fees to try the case exceed the cost to settle?

1) Criminals are being subjected to punishment, not being forced to pay compensation (though, that may too occur)

2) If plaintiffs were required to pay for the defendant's legal fees, it would be very difficult for many people to obtain representation as a plaintiff. The current compensation structure is what allows poor people, who are very often the ones hurt, to obtain representation.

3) If you want to cap unlimited liability, then find a way to limit victim's damages. Caps on damages hurt people - suppose someone is severely injured and left with intractable pain and paralysis - their medical care alone will far exceed several million and their pain and suffering over perhaps 10-15 years of agony will be tremendous.

[ravens9111]

Did anyone who replied actually watch the video?

Why should criminals know what their penalties are when committing a crime, but an individual or business have unlimited liability?

Even if a business or individual is sued and no damages are awarded in court, why shouldn't the plaintiff be required to pay their legal fees? Wouldn't this deter frivolous lawsuits?

There are frivolous suits filed everyday. I am not saying people should not be "fairly" compensated for harm done to them. People should be compensated for damages. The unlimited liability is a problem, don't you think?

Do these frivolous lawsuits get filed hoping that the defendant will settle out of court? When you are being sued, don't you try to determine the cost of legal fees to try the case and the amount that could be awarded in determining how much to pay out of court? So even if the case has no merit, the plaintiff could still get a nice settlement because the fees to try the case exceed the cost to settle?

1) Criminals are being subjected to punishment, not being forced to pay compensation (though, that may too occur)

2) If plaintiffs were required to pay for the defendant's legal fees, it would be very difficult for many people to obtain representation as a plaintiff. The current compensation structure is what allows poor people, who are very often the ones hurt, to obtain representation.

3) If you want to cap unlimited liability, then find a way to limit victim's damages. Caps on damages hurt people - suppose someone is severely injured and left with intractable pain and paralysis - their medical care alone will far exceed several million and their pain and suffering over perhaps 10-15 years of agony will be tremendous.

Don't most attorneys take these types of cases on a contingency fee basis because the plaintiff can't afford legal fees? In that case, wouldn't the attorney be held responsible for paying the defendant's legal fees since the plaintiff could not afford their own legal fees? Wouldn't this prevent attorneys that represent the plaintiff from filing frivolous lawsuits?

Again, I am not saying that those who are physically injured should not be fairly compensated for harm done to them. Why should an injured person receive more money just because the defendant has deeper pockets? If you sue a corporation that is worth 500 million, why should they get more money just because the corporation is worth more? What if the corporation is only worth 10 million and they get much less? Why the disparity even though the harm done is the same?

[General Tso]

just another example of trollish Republicans; studies show medmal tort damages only account for like 2% of healthcare costs, and if you abide by the "FREE MARKET" then you should allow for the possibility of your company being exposed to greater liability if it takes greater risk.

It's actually around 5%, or about $60b out of the $1,200b spent on healthcare each year.

Rayiner shared this excellent study just a day or 2 ago:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/art ... gation.pdf

[ravens9111]

just another example of trollish Republicans; studies show medmal tort damages only account for like 2% of healthcare costs, and if you abide by the "FREE MARKET" then you should allow for the possibility of your company being exposed to greater liability if it takes greater risk.

It's actually around 5%, or about $60b out of the $1,200b spent on healthcare each year.

Rayiner shared this excellent study just a day or 2 ago:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/art ... gation.pdf

Nice find. One factor that I believe is missing in the report is that costs have also risen due to tests and procedures being done that are not necessary. These tests and procedures are being done to avoid malpractice lawsuits. An attorney could always claim that xyz was not conducted and a verdict is awarded even if it was not the cause of injury. To avoid these claims, doctors are covering themselves to prevent liability. Of course, this will make costs go up. I don't think is included in most analysis of rising costs of healthcare.

[General Tso]

just another example of trollish Republicans; studies show medmal tort damages only account for like 2% of healthcare costs, and if you abide by the "FREE MARKET" then you should allow for the possibility of your company being exposed to greater liability if it takes greater risk.

It's actually around 5%, or about $60b out of the $1,200b spent on healthcare each year.

Rayiner shared this excellent study just a day or 2 ago:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/art ... gation.pdf

Nice find. One factor that I believe is missing in the report is that costs have also risen due to tests and procedures being done that are not necessary. These tests and procedures are being done to avoid malpractice lawsuits. An attorney could always claim that xyz was not conducted and a verdict is awarded even if it was not the cause of injury. To avoid these claims, doctors are covering themselves to prevent liability. Of course, this will make costs go up. I don't think is included in most analysis of rising costs of healthcare.

Those are pretty convenient excuses to bilk people of more $$ arent they?

[cahesu]

Yes this is a good excuse, particularly when doctors own interests in the laboratories taking the tests.

Most studies have found that in states where damages are capped, there is little change in the number of procedures ordered per patient visit.

It seems to me like both sides on the tort reform issue are being fairly cynical, but unfortunately being cynical might best allow us to evaluate the motives of the people involved.

[TrampsLikeU$]

I took an econ class on this last fall taught by Frank Sloan, probably THE leading econ med mal expert, and the 5% number from the Studdert study is at the upper end of economists' estimates. Usually, studies show somewhere between 2% and 5%. I can't remember the Studdert study in particular, but most of the studies I read in class DO take into account defensive medicine.

The general takeaway from the class was that while med mal is a problem and does contribute to the cost of medicine, it is not as blameworthy as mainstream media/general public opinion make it out to be, and attempts at tort reform often just end up hurting the most severely-injured victims while not making much of a difference as far as frivolous lawsuits are concerned.

[General Tso]

I took an econ class on this last fall taught by Frank Sloan, probably THE leading econ med mal expert, and the 5% number from the Studdert study is at the upper end of economists' estimates. Usually, studies show somewhere between 2% and 5%. I can't remember the Studdert study in particular, but most of the studies I read in class DO take into account defensive medicine.

The general takeaway from the class was that while med mal is a problem and does contribute to the cost of medicine, it is not as blameworthy as mainstream media/general public opinion make it out to be, and attempts at tort reform often just end up hurting the most severely-injured victims while not making much of a difference as far as frivolous lawsuits are concerned.

can you suggest some readings on this?

[A'nold]

Uh, no. "frivilous lawsuits" do not actually exist. There is a thing called summary judgment as well as many other ways to keep "frivilous" lawsuits out of the court system. "Losing" a case does not mean that your claim was frivilous, it just means that the judge or jury weighed the evidence and decided for the other party by a preponderance of the evidence.

Tort reform is just a big business ploy to make more $. This is so obvious that it shouldn't need stating. Do not be a sheep and listen to the anti tort insurance backed commercials. It only helps a tiny, minute segment of society and hurts the rest of us.

[General Tso]

Uh, no. "frivilous lawsuits" do not actually exist. There is a thing called summary judgment as well as many other ways to keep "frivilous" lawsuits out of the court system. "Losing" a case does not mean that your claim was frivilous, it just means that the judge or jury weighed the evidence and decided for the other party by a preponderance of the evidence.

Tort reform is just a big business ploy to make more $. This is so obvious that it shouldn't need stating. Do not be a sheep and listen to the anti tort insurance backed commercials. It only helps a tiny, minute segment of society and hurts the rest of us.

agreed...and the data supports A'nold's points. that Studdard study argues that the vast majority (90%+) of frivilous claims are dismissed before trial.

Conversely, the same study found that a small percentage of victims are ever awarded damages (less than 10%).

[TrampsLikeU$]

I took an econ class on this last fall taught by Frank Sloan, probably THE leading econ med mal expert, and the 5% number from the Studdert study is at the upper end of economists' estimates. Usually, studies show somewhere between 2% and 5%. I can't remember the Studdert study in particular, but most of the studies I read in class DO take into account defensive medicine.

The general takeaway from the class was that while med mal is a problem and does contribute to the cost of medicine, it is not as blameworthy as mainstream media/general public opinion make it out to be, and attempts at tort reform often just end up hurting the most severely-injured victims while not making much of a difference as far as frivolous lawsuits are concerned.

can you suggest some readings on this?

PMed you.

[TCScrutinizer]

I can see why this would piss you off. Please explain how the insurance companies are evil?

This would be nationwide. There have been tort reform proposals in the past that have failed to succeed in Congress. I think that could change in the near future. Maybe I am wrong though.

This will not happen with a Democrat majority.

That's funny. I thought you might say that. I am just not sure how much longer that majority will hold. I guess we will find out in November.

Anyone with half a brain easily sees through the insurance lobby's bs. However, those on the extreme right never show that they have half a brain and just follow whatever the party line espouses. The sad thing is that this will absolutely devestate these same people. Lose you daughter because a doctor injects here with rat poison? Here's 50k baby, don't you feel better now?

To say that any amount of money can replace a lost loved one is patently absurd. I'm not sure why 50k is too much. Was your hypothetical daughter's life worth 150k? 1.5 mil? Are there actuaries that determine this sort of thing?

Secondly, how can we even reform something when we can't even seem to come up with a clear legal definition of it?

[General Tso]

To say that any amount of money can replace a lost loved one is patently absurd. I'm not sure why 50k is too much. Was your hypothetical daughter's life worth 150k? 1.5 mil? Are there actuaries that determine this sort of thing?

Secondly, how can we even reform something when we can't even seem to come up with a clear legal definition of it?

it's not at all uncommon to attach a $$ to one's life