It has nothing to do with rank incompetance. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/index.html)

And yet, the GOP still pushes to limit medical liability, specifically for OB/GYN's. Yeah, its sue happy people's fault their malpractice insurance is going up...not the fact that we have the 2nd highest newborn fatality rate in the modern world.

Mothers who take drugs should not have babies.

That is where the American high infant mortality rate comes from. No one tells you that, but that is where they are coming from.

Not malpractice.

We also deliver fetuses as live babies, extreme preemies, in greater numbers than any other country. Many of those die in the first month of life. In other countries they would have died before birth or at birth.

Additionally, American women put off childbirth to a latter age, to a certain extent. Older mothers increases infant mortality rates.

I expect that US doctors are providing high quality care to all their pregnant patients. Lifestyle and social factors are probably more relevant than malpractice.

I expect that US doctors are providing high quality care to all their pregnant patients.


Many do. But not all, by any means.

http://www.marchofdimes.com/peristats/level1.aspx?reg=99&top=6&stop=122&lev=1&slev=1&obj=1

~57% of the US infant mortality rate is caused by SIDS.

IE, the two leading associated factors of SIDS are infant positioning, lying the infant face down, and the mother smoking in the home.

If you are going to use US infant mortality rates to justify the high cost of malpractice insurance for US OB/GYNs, you had better get your facts straight.

You are saying that OB/GYNs are directly causing infant deaths to rationalize your support for Legal Lotto, of which lawyers are raking in 33 cents of every dollar by the way. Must be nice.

The fact is, that it is consumers of health insurance who are forced to come up with the the payouts for these lawsuits.

I'm sorry, but you can attempt to justify it all you want...it doesn't change the fact that more of our newborns die than virtually the entire western world.

There are drugs in other countries...

There is SIDS in other countries...

People smoke in other countries...

Limiting liability on medical malpractice, especially obstetrics, will simply put more money in the hands of the insurance companies while removing yet another incentive for Doctors to actually be concientious of what they are doing.

I'm sorry, but you can attempt to justify it all you want...it doesn't change the fact that more of our newborns die than virtually the entire western world.

I am not justifying anything.

We, in the US, attempt to save miscarriages(late term) as live births more than ANY other country.

That fact alone is going to skew the statistics.

If you compare full term births to full term births across the board, the US is going to come out as one of the best.

And you have provided no proof that US OBs are less conscientious than other OBs around the world. What is it about practicing in the US which would make them want to fvck up on purpose? Your premise and your conclusion is absurd.

I'm sorry, but you can attempt to justify it all you want...it doesn't change the fact that more of our newborns die than virtually the entire western world.And allowing the parents to cash in after the death will bring the child back to life. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

If law suits help, explain to me why the U.S. has the highest rate of litigation but a high mortality rate, whereas those "other" countries you mention have a low litigation rate and lower mortality rate.

There are drugs in other countries...
There is SIDS in other countries...
People smoke in other countries...

True on all accounts. But none of those have anything to do with what an OB does.

Infant mortality in the US is tied directly to low and very low birth weight.

You have provided NO connection, causal or incidental, between US OB malpractice and US infant mortality. Which is your main point, that is to say, that US Obstetricians are causing more deaths of infants than in other countries.

While I will accept that a very small percentage may be caused by a doctor, the vast majority are caused by life style behaviors of the mother. Conversely, there is a correlation between women who can not afford health insurance(poor women) and high infant mortality in the US. And it is very easy to understand that the reason why health insurance is out of reach for these women, is directly causally related to lawsuit payouts, which inevitably are passed on to the consumer.

Ergo, lawyers sue doctors, causing insurance rates to be increase to cover the cost of the payouts, which causes the price of insurance to rise, which causes the cost of services to go up, which causes the price of health insurance to go up to cover that increase, to the point where poor women can not afford health insurance, which is directly related to increased US infant mortality rates.

Now one could argue that because US OBs are so diligent and rigorous, more-so than in other countries, with attempting to save more pre-term infants, that they cause the infant mortality numbers to go up. I will give you that much. I don't think that I would want to be a person to argue that point(that that behavior needs to be changed) though, all things considered.

Another issue that is not brought up in that report are that the US has the highest "fertility issues" babies. There are more women getting pregnant with fertility drugs than any other country. Like Fy'yr stated, more women here are having babies later in life, that combined with the women who are high risk because of infertility issues, raises the possibility of fetal death.

I agree that we could do much better with pre-natal care, especially for those women/girls underage and without insurance. However, these numbers in the article Aidon refers to are just arbitrary until you can attach the reasons for such numbers.

I wanted to add something else about having a baby. Most people think that having a baby is just something that is a natural thing as is relatively easy. I mean, women have been having babies since the begging of time. And certainly those first women did not have the luxury of epidurals, pain medicines, and neo-natologists.

However, the number of things that can go wrong or happen during a birth are astounding! I have seen perfectly healthy women die from things like amniotic clots, boggy uterus', (inability for the uterus to contract after the baby is born which causes the mother to bleed out) Rh factor incompatabilities, and the list goes on.

Each child that is born is a true miracle. The fact that they survived the traumatic event of being squished through a relative small opening without dying of suffocation or breaking any bones is amazing!

Malpractice insurance for OB/GYN docs and nurses are the highest of any of the specialties - even Cardiac and Neuro surgeons. The reason is because of the myriad of things that could possibly go wrong. And the devastation the parents/families feel when something does. Our belief is that babies are not supposed to die - so when they do, people want to blame someone, anyone.

I agree with Fy'yr, that in reality I don't believe there are doctors that are causing the deaths. I believe that there are many other factors that place the baby and the mother at risk. Those are the major reasons for the increased infant deaths in this country.

And allowing the parents to cash in after the death will bring the child back to life.


So they should be compensated...how? Having the doctor give them one of his or her own children?

Moreover, based on your logic, awarding money damages wouldn't put someone's eye back, or a amputated arm back, or even relieve someone of physical pain and suffering.

Money damages as compensation is how our society has been handling these things for hundreds of years. Are you suggesting that someone who has been injured by someone else's negligence shouldn't be compensated? I had no idea you were such a radical thinker....

You are mixing your analogies, terribly.

The injured party is the baby, in the context of this discussion. Your hypothetical 'logic' does not make any sense, because it is not analogous.

Are you suggesting that someone who has been injured by someone else's negligence shouldn't be compensated?
How do you compensate a dead baby? It is dead.

Would you support the notion that if the mother injures the baby(and let us even say, lives), that the baby is still deserving of compensation? From her.

And allowing the parents to cash in after the death will bring the child back to life. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

If law suits help, explain to me why the U.S. has the highest rate of litigation but a high mortality rate, whereas those "other" countries you mention have a low litigation rate and lower mortality rate.

I have yet to see statistics indicating we've the highest rate of litigation.

However...if we do, I'd venture to guess it has more to do with thestaggering amount of corporation v. corporation litigations out there.

No, money won't bring a dead child back. But neither you, nor anyone else, has been able to provide a reasonable alternative other than 'Sorry, Mr. and Mrs. Jones, but it sucks to be you. We'd offer you a cookie, but we don't have to anymore.'

True on all accounts. But none of those have anything to do with what an OB does.

Infant mortality in the US is tied directly to low and very low birth weight.

You have provided NO connection, causal or incidental, between US OB malpractice and US infant mortality. Which is your main point, that is to say, that US Obstetricians are causing more deaths of infants than in other countries.

Since when does this argument require provable causation? No tort reformist has proven that limiting liability will reduce insurance premiums either, but they still claim it, indeed previous experience has shown that tort reform will not reduce insurance premiums, be they health or malpractice.

When people's babies die, they are going to sue. Frequently to limited effect, because it is not easy to try medical malpractice cases. In many states they already have special rules for medical malpractice as opposed to other torts which make it more difficult for a plaintiff.

However, I would suggest that the medical profession needs to pay more attention to fixing the malpractice which is absolutely rampant in American medicine and spend less time trying to get out of the repurcussions of committing malpractice.

While I will accept that a very small percentage may be caused by a doctor, the vast majority are caused by life style behaviors of the mother.

I find it difficult to believe the lifestyle choices of Americans are that different than the lifestyle choices of Koreans or Poles or Russians or Swedes. I mean, for heavens sake, only Latvia is worse than we are.

Conversely, there is a correlation between women who can not afford health insurance(poor women) and high infant mortality in the US. And it is very easy to understand that the reason why health insurance is out of reach for these women, is directly causally related to lawsuit payouts, which inevitably are passed on to the consumer.

You can't have it both ways, are we working with evidence of causation or not, because you have less data to prove that health insurance rates are noticably increased because of lawsuit payouts than I have to show that our Doctors commit malpractice with disurbing regularity. No, insurance rates is out of reach for people because A) Insurance companies invested poorly over the past half decade B) Greed on their part and C) The GOP has owned our nation.

[I]
Money damages as compensation is how our society has been handling these things for hundreds of years. Are you suggesting that someone who has been injured by someone else's negligence shouldn't be compensated? I had no idea you were such a radical thinker....

Thousands, even.

You are mixing your analogies, terribly.

The injured party is the baby, in the context of this discussion. Your hypothetical 'logic' does not make any sense, because it is not analogous.


How do you compensate a dead baby? It is dead.

Would you support the notion that if the mother injures the baby(and let us even say, lives), that the baby is still deserving of compensation? From her.

A child, legally speaking (in great simplicity, because its more complicated) is essentially the same legal person as its guardian. Be that a single parent, the State, or the legal entity created by marriage.

Which isn't really the point. The mother's damages are still different from the child's damages, technically, but as the mother of the child any award for damages going to the child comes under the control or inheritance of the child's guardian regardless.

I find it difficult to believe the lifestyle choices of Americans are that different than the lifestyle choices of Koreans or Poles or Russians or Swedes.

I'm not sure why you find that hard to believe. Obesity is just one example where a lifestyle choice, more prevalent in the US than Sweden or Korea, that has a massive impact on life expectancy.

Obesity is rampant in Europe as well as the US.

There is a higher percentage of fat men in Germany and France and I believe Italy, than in the US.

So they should be compensated...how? Having the doctor give them one of his or her own children?

Moreover, based on your logic, awarding money damages wouldn't put someone's eye back, or a amputated arm back, or even relieve someone of physical pain and suffering.It's simple. Unless your injury is economic, there should be NO cash handouts.

If your baby dies, no amount of money can compensate you, unless that money is put towards a fertility program to help you have another. If the doctor was grossly negligent, we have a criminal justice system to deter/punish/etc.

Face it, the plaintiffs aren't suing to be "compensated". No moral person would feel "compensated" with a pile of cash in place of their child. Rather, they're suing to (1) get "revenge" and redirect their anger and (2) reap some easy money for the taking. The civil justice system shouldn't reward either goal.

Now, if you lose your eye or your arm, you have a real economic injury -- you can't work as well, it's more expensive to do day-to-day chores, and so on. In that case, you <i>should</i> be compensated.Money damages as compensation is how our society has been handling these things for hundreds of years.Western society has done many things for hundreds of years: slavery, genocide, crusades, wars, forced relocations, and the list goes on. Tradition isn't necessarily just.

I have yet to see statistics indicating we've the highest rate of litigation.Please, the U.S. is so litigious, it's a global joke. The cost of the U.S. tort system hovers around 2% of GDP, whereas in other modern countries (Germany, Japan, etc.) it's around 0.5%. Oddly enough, in 1950 we were also around 0.5%. I guess that means the lawyers/plaintiffs weren't less greedy, but everyone was more careful! <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/tortliabilitysystem_apr02.pdfWith estimated annual direct costs of nearly $180 billion,1 or 1.8 percent of GDP, the U.S. tort liability system is the most expensive in the world, more than double the average cost of other industrialized nations that have been studied.2 This cost has grown steadily over time, up from only 1.3 percent of GDP in 1970, and only 0.6 percent in 1950. The current cost amounts to nearly $650 for every citizen of the United States, and is one reason that many commentators have called for reform of the tort liability system. The cost is especially troubling because only 20 percent of these dollars actually go to claimants for economic damages, such as lost wages or medical
expenses.

Please, the U.S. is so litigious, it's a global joke. The cost of the U.S. tort system hovers around 2% of GDP, whereas in other modern countries (Germany, Japan, etc.) it's around 0.5%. Oddly enough, in 1950 we were also around 0.5%. I guess that means the lawyers/plaintiffs weren't less greedy, but everyone was more careful! <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/tortliabilitysystem_apr02.pdf

Most of those figures, which I do not concede are accurate considering their source is the White House which is currently very much biased, but most of that money they claim the tort system is 'costing' is business on business claims. Or business on individual.

This notion that people are trying to steal the money from hardworking businesses is a fallacy. John Smith suing Bobs Shovel Imporium doesn't even make a blip on the radar. Its Home Depots suing Black and Deckers for 3 billion dollars for whatever reason (other than breech of contract, which is contractual not tortious) which inflates those numbers.

So, frankly, I'm not surprised if we have more. We have alot of businesses and they like to sue each other.

Hell the government itself has no qualms filing suit against industries and people (I would find it amusing if the White House included claims made by the state and federal governments in those numbers).

edit: Oh, and I find it particularly amusing that they use a 'make the polluters pay' analogy in there...and then go on with the White House line of how making polluters pay isn't necessarily a good thing.

Its just additional confirmation that the White House's interests lie with Business, not the citizens of the US who are damaged by Business.

http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/newsroom/index.php?p=factsfiguresCivil Justice System<ul><li>America's civil justice system is the world's most expensive, with a direct cost in 2001 of $205.4 billion, or 2.04 percent of GDP. [Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, February 2003.]
<li>Tort costs increased by $26 billion in 2001 over 2000, a 14.3 percent jump. That represents the largest percentage increase since 1986. [Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, February 2003.]
<li>Tort costs were $721 per U.S. citizen in 2001, meaning the average American family of four paid a "litigation tax" of nearly $2,900 due to increased costs from lawsuits that forced businesses to raise the price of products and services. That cost is equivalent to a 5 percent tax on wages. [Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, February 2003]
<li>The U.S. civil justice system in 2001 returned to claimants less than 50 cents on the dollar and less than 22 cents for actual economic losses. [Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, February 2003]
<li>Tort costs are divided: 24 percent for noneconomic losses - such as pain and suffering - 22 percent for economic losses; 21 percent for administration; 19 percent for plaintiffs' lawyers; 14 percent for defendants' costs. [Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, February 2003]
<li>The top 10 jury awards in 2002 totaled $32.7 billion; in 1999 the top 10 awards totaled $9 billion. [National Law Journal, January 2003]
<li>From 1993 to 1999, the median jury award in the U.S. went from $500,000 to $1.8 million. Those figures do not include punitive damages.
<li>In 1997, more than 15 million lawsuits were filed in state courts - one every two seconds.You still deny there's a problem here, Aidon?

Yes.

What, pray tell, do they use to determine their 'litigation cost'?

By the by, the annual cost per American for advertising in the US is higher than the figures they are spitting out.

Oh, with regard to 2002, what Tort Reformists always love to mention about that bizarre year was that 28 billion of that 32.7 were the tobacco awards, an abberation.

Top 10 verdicts in 2002:
You'll notice that most of the top 10 are contract law or A..which of course Tort Reformists have nothing against, because the are sucking the big floppy donkey dick of Corporate America (http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/csp/2002_Files/2002_Civil.pdf#search='top%2010%20verdicts%202002' )

As for median jury award, that's a piss poor way of determining anything, since a case doesn't make it to trial unless its fairly serious. The expense of trying a case is prohibitive. And, of course, they chose median...not average. And I'm sure they chose 93-99 for a particular reason to bolster their argument.

As for 15 million lawsuits filed in state courts in '97. That's nothing. In '97 we had a quarter of a billion people in our nation. Then there are millions of corporate entities and foreign entities. Further, in saying 'lawsuits' I have no doubt it is inclusive of everything from divorces to custody disputes to probate to contract disputes. Hell, for all I know they are including small claims and municipal courts when they say state courts.

Finally, all these mentions of median verdicts and increased verdicts fail to take in account how many verdicts came back defense verdicts.

Median is average.

Median is average.
You're thinking of mean. Median is the middle item in a list.

Mean is average too.

They both are.

Anyway it does not really matter.

Of all the cases which are filed, only .8% of them find the defendant 'guilty'. 5% are ruled against the plaintiffs.

Many cases are dropped or dismissed for being frivolous.

And most of the cases are settled out of court before there is an actual decision. We really can not get these numbers directly. Aidon will say that they settle because they are guilty. I say they settle because of the risk; the risk of falling into that .8% and having some stratospheric judgement liened against them.

Those settle payouts add up. And are passed onto you, the consumer, as increased prices, of whatever goods or services, that the insurance is protecting. Aidon likes to think, and say, that he is 'sticking it to the Man', Big Business, Evil Corporate America, or whatever. In the end it is you who is paying for this sh1t.

In the end, 'Business' to lawyers is only a franchise, a machine, a geared box if you will, of moving money that you, the consumer the producer, have earned through, to line their woolen suited pockets, and pay for their Jags and second house mortgages(which they are writing off their taxes anyway). YOU are paying them.

Businesses are the machines which produce, and get things done. Lawfirms and lawyers produce NOTHING for society. No product, nothing. They are a service industry which moves money from those who produce, to those who do not, and collect a 33% finders fee along the way, producing nothing.

Whores and strippers at least produce erections, and such, are more valuable to society than lawyers.

And most of the cases are settled out of court before there is an actual decision. We really can not get these numbers directly. Aidon will say that they settle because they are guilty. I say they settle because of the risk; the risk of falling into that .8% and having some stratospheric judgement liened against them.

That's exactly why they settle...and Plaintiffs settle for less than what they think their claim is worse because of the risk of getting a defense verdict (there is no 'guilt' as per se, in civil law). Its a little something called dispute negotiations.

Those settle payouts add up. And are passed onto you, the consumer, as increased prices, of whatever goods or services, that the insurance is protecting. Aidon likes to think, and say, that he is 'sticking it to the Man', Big Business, Evil Corporate America, or whatever. In the end it is you who is paying for this sh1t.

In the end, it promotes safer practices on the part of Corporate America. Your cars are now at a lesser risk of blowing up. Your food has less risk of burning the flesh from your body. There is less risk of the beer vendor at Giant Stadium serving that obviously drunk man another beer or two in the 4th Quarter. Slowly Doctors are looking at how they can reduce the amount of Malpractice committed in their field (though they still would love to see the 'solution' to their high malpractice rates be the removal of accountability).

In the end, 'Business' to lawyers is only a franchise, a machine, a geared box if you will, of moving money that you, the consumer the producer, have earned through, to line their woolen suited pockets, and pay for their Jags and second house mortgages(which they are writing off their taxes anyway). YOU are paying them.

Then complain about the Businesses, which decide to make the public pay for the losses from their negligence instead of increasing the pay of their CEO and board by an additional 5 million a year each. Oh, and you can only write off the interest from the mortgage on one house.

Businesses are the machines which produce, and get things done. Lawfirms and lawyers produce NOTHING for society. No product, nothing. They are a service industry which moves money from those who produce, to those who do not, and collect a 33% finders fee along the way, producing nothing.

Guess what Fy'yr. Businesses which 'produce' in America are going the way of the dodo. We're a service industry nation. What does an insurance company produce? What does a retailer produce? What does a bank produce?

Oh and median != average.

Oh and median != average.

Oops. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average. We usually understand average in the conversational sense to be the mean but for a saying like 'the average man in the street' we would take another meaning, probably the mode.

But noone would ever say "9 is the average of 1,7, 4, 9, 6, 2, 5"

9 is the median. 4.8571 is the average or mean.

median != average

Median is taken after the numbers are arranged sequentially.

Your set would be sorted (1, 2, 4, 5, 6 ,7, 9) and the median would then be taken as 5.

Likewise, lets put the mean into context. Let's say nine awards of $500,000 and one award of $10,000,000. The median of this set is $500,000, the mean however is $1,450,000. Mean is a much more telling measure of central tendency in the case of awards.

Tudamorf apparently wants to throw out our civil and common law system entirely. Fortunately, there's not a chance of that happening.


The injured party is the baby, in the context of this discussion. Your hypothetical 'logic' does not make any sense, because it is not analogous.


Only if you equate "injury" to "physical injury." Of course, that's not so. The parents of a baby that is killed do suffer injury. If you take something away from me wrongfully, then you have injured me.

If you take one of my children away from me, you have wounded me more grievously than if you had shot me with a gun. If you don't understand that, then you have lack any emotional connection with the human race at all, and have forfeited your right to call yourself a human being.

But noone would ever say "9 is the average of 1,7, 4, 9, 6, 2, 5"

9 is the median. 4.8571 is the average or mean.

median != average

If you talk about an average tennis player then it will be assumed you are using a mode or median and not taking an arithmetic mean of points won in competitions or prize money. There are a variety of averages which are used in different contexts and the arithmetic mean is not the correct average to use when you do not have values with which to calculate it. The median is a perfectly valid average when used in context and will remain so no matter how many times you say otherwise. Providing one example where the mean is a useful average does not make other averages invalid.

Give me an average colour from red, red, green, orange, yellow, red, red?

Give me an average colour from red, red, green, orange, yellow, red, red?
This would be the average color.


Derived by averaging each of the red, green, and blue components of the colors.

1) 255 0 0 (red)
2) 255 0 0 (red)
3) 255 0 0 (red)
4) 255 0 0 (red)
5) 0 255 0 (green)
6) 255 255 0 (yellow)
7) 255 127 0 (orange)
------------
Totals / 7 = 218 91 0

And your argument doesn't change the fact that they used median instead of average solely because it provided a better number for their argument.

In the end, it promotes safer practices on the part of Corporate America. Your cars are now at a lesser risk of blowing up. Your food has less risk of burning the flesh from your body.Oh yes, let's all thank the stupid McDonald's coffee woman for reminding us that coffee is hot and you shouldn't balance it on your knees while riding in a car. Good thing the taxpayers spent countless dollars teaching us that critical lesson. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

As for cars blowing up, I'd expect an American car (made for America, subject to U.S. law) to blow up far more readily than would a Japanese car (made for Japan, subject to Japanese law). One wonders how the Japanese do it without a grossly excessive tort system. Or the Germans, for that matter.

You keep saying that "massive plaintiff windfalls = more safety," but you fail to <b>prove</b> it.

Tudamorf apparently wants to throw out our civil and common law system entirely. Fortunately, there's not a chance of that happening.No, I just want to throw out non-economic and punitive damages (or limit them greatly), to make our legal system in line with that of the rest of the world. There's actually a very good chance of that happening, since the U.S. is an aberration and tort reform is always on the horizon.

Oh yes, let's all thank the stupid McDonald's coffee woman for reminding us that coffee is hot and you shouldn't balance it on your knees while riding in a car. Good thing the taxpayers spent countless dollars teaching us that critical lesson.

The car was parked. The coffee was 15-20 degrees hotter than the industry standard. McDonald's own hired scientists warned them that coffee served that hot could cause 3rd degree burns before it cooled enough to not burn, if spilled on clothes. McDonalds was well aware, through previous claims, that their coffee was dangerously hot. Her initial claim sought only recompense for her medical bills and McDonalds refused that reasonable claim.

Hers is a perfect example of how our civil justice system compelled a company to stop with a dangerous business practice. They knew the coffee was dangerously hot, but kept selling it that hot because it sold better than the coffee from competitors who sold their coffee at a safe temperature.

As for cars blowing up, I'd expect an American car (made for America, subject to U.S. law) to blow up far more readily than would a Japanese car (made for Japan, subject to Japanese law). One wonders how the Japanese do it without a grossly excessive tort system. Or the Germans, for that matter.

While I am completely unfamiliar with Japan or Germany's legal system...I rather suspect both are remarkably similar to ours, especially given our involvement in setting up their governments after WWII.

You keep saying that "massive plaintiff windfalls = more safety," but you fail to <b>prove</b> it.

off the top of my head?

Ford. McDonald's Coffee. Firestone Tires. Every freaking safety recall the Auto industry puts out. The American rail system.

And, the neat thing is...this increase in safety is a secondary benefit. The primary purpose of our tort system is to provide recompense for injury done through negligent actions.

No, I just want to throw out non-economic and punitive damages (or limit them greatly), to make our legal system in line with that of the rest of the world. There's actually a very good chance of that happening, since the U.S. is an aberration and tort reform is always on the horizon.

There is not a very good chance of it happening without a Constitutional Amendment.

In Ohio its been tried three times, if I recall. Each time the Supreme Court of Ohio has barred it as an unconstitutional infringment of the legislative branch on the balliwick of the Judicial Branch.

Oh yes, let's all thank the stupid McDonald's coffee woman for reminding us that coffee is hot and you shouldn't balance it on your knees while riding in a car. Good thing the taxpayers spent countless dollars teaching us that critical lesson.

Unfortunately the hot coffee incident isn't a good example. Am I right in thinking that McDonalds had settled out of court already over half a dozen claims of serious coffee burns? McDonalds were happy to sell scalding coffee to their customers and knew that a number of them would have serious burns. They stopped when a court taught them a lesson with high punitive damages.

In this specific example McDonalds were forced to provide a safer method of serving coffee. If you think people have a right to have very hot coffee then the safety change was overboard, but it still remains true that the court made the coffee safer. There are also alternative ways for governments to enforce safe practice without putting the onus on citizens to go to court.

(Let's skip the fact that tort law took many attempts to force safe practise on McDonalds as the previous cases were all settled out of court)

Unfortunately the hot coffee incident isn't a good example. Am I right in thinking that McDonalds had settled out of court already over half a dozen claims of serious coffee burns? McDonalds were happy to sell scalding coffee to their customers and knew that a number of them would have serious burns. They stopped when a court taught them a lesson with high punitive damages.

In this specific example McDonalds were forced to provide a safer method of serving coffee. If you think people have a right to have very hot coffee then the safety change was overboard, but it still remains true that the court made the coffee safer. There are also alternative ways for governments to enforce safe practice without putting the onus on citizens to go to court.

(Let's skip the fact that tort law took many attempts to force safe practise on McDonalds as the previous cases were all settled out of court)

The same people who stand for Tort Reform are also typically the same people who stand against additional (or any) governmental regulation of industry. They are big fans of caveat emptor.

While I am completely unfamiliar with Japan or Germany's legal system...I rather suspect both are remarkably similar to ours, especially given our involvement in setting up their governments after WWII.Maybe similar in theory, but not in practice. People are compensated, but don't reap huge windfalls just because they have a good lawyer. As I said, back in 1950 we had the same basic system, but tort costs were only 1/4 of today's costs (as a percentage of GDP).

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20010723.htmlControlling Damages: A Sharp Contrast

On the other hand, the Germans control their damage awards in ways that would confound big-ticket American plaintiffs' lawyers. It is well documented that the scale of damages resulting from successful tort litigation in Germany is at least one order of magnitude lower than in the US. Thus, where a broken leg in a car accident in New York City might produce a jury award of $300,000, in Berlin it would produce an award of around $30,000.

Why is there such a striking contrast in these numbers? First, because Germans have very good health insurance, there is no need for victims of accidents to "sue first" and hope for reimbursement later, as is often the case for those Americans lucky enough to have private health insurance.

Second, while there are pain and suffering awards in Germany, they are much lower than in the U.S., where on average 50% of typical personal injury awards are comprised of compensation for pain and suffering.

Third, Germans pay their lawyers much less than the 1/3 contingency fee collected by successful plaintiffs' lawyers (and they pay their lawyers whether they win or lose).

Finally, there are no punitive damages in Germany — although punitives play a much smaller role in American damage awards than either the German or American media would have one believe.

Scirocco believes that Germany's system (^) is unholy, but it's much closer to the norm of the industrialized world. Our system has to change; eventually there will be a taxpayer revolt.

There is not a very good chance of it happening without a Constitutional Amendment.Many states have capped or limited noneconomic and punitive damages and have enacted other tort reforms. It's not unconstitutional. And those that have capped damages have far lower insurance rates, which means that health care is more affordable for the people who need it (I can't believe I'm agreeing with Fyyr):

http://www.magmutual.com/mmic/articles/Tort%20Reform%20-%20GA.pdf2003 OB/GYN
Premium Comparison
$1,000,000/$3,000,000
Limit of Insurance

Comparison of 2001-2002
Premium Increases
States With and Without Caps

CITIES WHOSE STATES CAP AWARDS
Denver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$34,868
Indianapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$37,999
Milwaukee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$30,304
Richmond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$43,071
San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . .$40,069
28 states cap awards

CITIES WHOSE STATES DON’T CAP AWARDS
Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$62,148
Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$139,696
Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$119,482
Miami . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$249,196
New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$95,837
Miami rate prior to cap effective 9/15/03
There are outstanding hospitals here in San Francisco; tort reform hasn't compromised our health care.

I'm no expert in US trade/import/auto laws but personally I'd think it wouldn't matter where its made, if its sold and used in the US, then it will have to apply to US safety laws

LOL--have fun.

http://www.duhaime.org/Law_fun/lawsuit.aspx

First off, how can you have a negligent action? Neglect means that you did NOT do something. Only if you consider no action an action does what you say make any sense, and that doesn't.

Second, if people cause harm to another(or others), they should be criminally punished. Send them to jail if they caused injury. That would send the message, that you want to get across. And it won't cost us, the consumers, a dime(other than incarceration).

You seem to lump me into some eevile clandestine pro business cabal. And sound like Swift when you do. I can not care less about Big Business. They are going to make their 10percent profit on stuff, no matter what the cost of the goods or services are. They are going to take care of themselves, for themselves, without me.

I just don't want to pay people like your dad or Scirocco any money unless I actually hire them. But of course, I am now(of course you are going to defend the current system) through every product and service I pay for. When I buy my lift ticket, I don't want half of it going to lawyers and insurance companies. When I buy my coffee, I don't want you guys taking your Vig from me in the process. I do. And I don't like it.

You make it sound like, trying to convince us, you guys are some kind of good guys, when you are more like Good Fellas. You are not protecting anybody or anything but your own house and boat payments, your own self interest. Of course I am protecting my own self interest too, my money and my labor, in this discussion; but I actually earned mine, I worked for it.

I don't care how many hands it gets exchanged through, lawyers are still reaching into my pocket, and taking my money. Lawyers are.

I am not here protecting business. I hope that all insurance companies go out of business frankly, they are ripping off the system just as much as you guys are. Better still would be that people would buy their OWN insurance to cover themselves against potential injury. That is what makes sense.

For example:
Have a Birthing Insurance policy. Baby dies during birth, file a claim with your service provider, your own ****ing insurance company. That way the rest of us do not have to pay for your litigations and shenanigans. If the OB is guilty of killing your baby, then send her to jail. Simple, and costs the rest of us nothing. Her killing your baby will not be amortized across to all the competent OBs, who should not be defraying the cost in the first place. And the costs, which end up to pay lawyers' light, cell phone bills, and those idiotic ambulance chasing TV commercials does not come out of OUR pockets.

Your system is STUPID.

First off, how can you have a negligent action? Neglect means that you did NOT do something. Only if you consider no action an action does what you say make any sense, and that doesn't.


You clearly don't understand the concept of negligence, which isn't the same as neglect. Negligence is based on the concept of a person acting with ordinary care to others in what they do. You, as well as the rest of us, owe that duty of care. If you act negligently, then you breach that duty of care and are liable to anyone proximately injured by your actions.

No wonder your view of the legal system is so cock-eyed. You don't have the slightest glimmer of what the law is or how it works!


You seem to lump me into some eevile clandestine pro business cabal.

Nah. I'll just lump you into the group of people who don't know what they're talking about...:)

You are saying that I have a contract with you, without ever actually signing one with you.

I don't owe you, or anyone else, sh1t. Unless we have entered into an agreement otherwise; most likely one of trade.

You only think that it is cock-eyed because I don't want consumers, us, to pay lawyers; I want to put them out of their ambulance chasing jobs(because they produce nothing). And most of the insurance industry with them.

The problem for you is that I am smart enough to NOT pour hot coffee on my penis and scrotum, and don't think that the rest of you should pay me anything if I do. I am responsible for my own actions. That is my DUTY to you, not making the rest of you all pay me for my stupid mistakes.

It is not a matter of knowledge, but a difference of opinion. I know the difference between what it is, and what it should be.

If I am providing you with a service or good, and I do not deliver what I say, or contract to do(and you hold up your end of the deal), then, and only then should you be compensated. If I actually cause you harm, I should go to jail. If we have not entered into that agreement, I owe you nothing, ethically that is(legally and presently, I still do, but you guys are unethical, so you don't really care).

First off, how can you have a negligent action? Neglect means that you did NOT do something. Only if you consider no action an action does what you say make any sense, and that doesn't.

If a ferry boat sails with its bow doors open and sinks then that is a straightforward negligent action. That event has happened in the past few years and people have died as a result. Ship captains have been responsible for negligent behavior for centuries as they need to provide constant good command of their vessel. It is not any stretch of the imagination to see that other service providers that do not meet their responsibilties can also be found negligent.

I've take negligent as not doing what would be normally expected, which puts someone in danger or causes harm., generally speaking it will be not doing something, but not always

You are saying that I have a contract with you, without ever actually signing one with you.

I don't owe you, or anyone else, sh1t. Unless we have entered into an agreement otherwise; most likely one of trade.


It's not a contract (unless you want to delve off into some social contract theory). It's basic tort law.

You owe me, and everyone else around you, a duty of care. Your denial is no more effective than when my 6-year-old says she doesn't want to take a bath and brush her teeth before going into bed. The law in this country (and many other countries) says you owe that duty of care. I assume you live in the United States; hence, this law applies to you.

If you breach that duty of care, then you are liable to whomever you injure. If you are willfully negligent (such as by running around claiming that you don't have any responsibility to act in a non-negligent manner and then acting that way--it's called gross negligence, by the way), then your liability increases, and you may even be liable for the dreaded punitive damages.

Protest all you want. All the froth you can muster won't change your legal obligation one iota. And if you act negligently, the same law that finds you liable will exact the monetary award from your money, your wages, or your property (all of which, by the way, you enjoy under the same societal structure that impose the duty of care on you).

If a ferry boat sails with its bow doors open and sinks then that is a straightforward negligent action...

True, I suppose. The Captain Hazelwoods of the world should be held not only be liable to the company they work for(for their losses), but criminally prosecuted for the damages that they cause.

But we are not talking about that.

Babies die during childbirth, and after, with competent care. That is a fact. That is the risk that mothers take when they deliver their babies. Or rather, they are supposed to. But they don't. The negligence in the situation brought up by Aidon, the baby was going to die anyway, and the OB was not able to prevent it. She neglected to prevent the baby from dying. And they get sued for it, their insurance company (usually)settles with the mother(family). Then that cost get passed on to the next consumers of the service, or amortized out among the entire insured customer base(which is worse).

Babies die. It happens. That is was how the profession of Obstetrics was originally started. Removing dead babies from mothers, in an attempt to save their lives.

Again, if you count full term deliveries, the US has the best infant mortality rate in the world. If you look at the causes of low birth weight babies, which is the real cause of infant mortality, here in the US; you really are looking at extreme preemies, drug babies, babies born to mothers who can not afford health insurance, or just plain non compliant mothers.

Aidon does not care about any of those, which number in the extreme majority, because there is no one to sue for those. No cash cow, no gold egg laying goose.

He can't sue the mom for killing her own kid.

Pedantically and smugly saying that the sky is blue, "Because it's blue" works for now, Dad.

Laws are only opinions backed up with force.

And they can change.

We just need to change them.



edit: just in case you infer the wrong thing, I know completely well that the sky is not always blue. It is many different colors, other than blue, most of the time.

Many states have capped or limited noneconomic and punitive damages and have enacted other tort reforms. It's not unconstitutional.

It depends on the state constitution. Ohio's constitution happens to be very similar to the Federal Constitution. However, I do not think the federal legislature has the right or constitutional ability to dictate the rules governing state courts. Nor do I think the Federal Legislature can constitutionally limit a jury's ability to award damages.

And those that have capped damages have far lower insurance rates, which means that health care is more affordable for the people who need it (I can't believe I'm agreeing with Fyyr)

http://www.magmutual.com/mmic/articles/Tort%20Reform%20-%20GA.pdf
There are outstanding hospitals here in San Francisco; tort reform hasn't compromised our health care.

Allow me to just quote this (http://www.americanvoice2004.org/health/malpractice.html):

Medical Mistakes the Problem

Liberals reject the notion that a tidal wave of frivolous lawsuits is drowning the medical profession. They point out that the number of malpractice claims have been flat since 1996.[26] They maintain that the problem isn't lawsuits but a small proportion of incompetent doctors. "Medical mistakes, not lawsuits, are the problem", says Tom Baker, Director of the University of Connecticut School of Law's Insurance Law Center.[27]

In 1986 the New York State Legislature commissioned an interdisciplinary team of physicians, attorneys, economists, statisticians and social research experts to diagnose the problem of soaring liability insurance premiums. The task force concluded that "finding fault with the tort system is easy; what is difficult is identifying an alternative that, on balance will do better." They studied 31,000 randomly sampled records from 51 hospitals and reviewed insurance company files for almost 70,000 claims of medical negligence in New York over 14 years. They concluded that for every 7.5 patients who were injured due to negligence one malpractice claim was filed. "(W)hile the legal system does in fact operate erratically, it hardly operates excessively", they noted. "(W)e found several times as many seriously disabled patients who received no legal redress for their injury as innocent doctors who bore the burden of defending against unwarranted malpractice claims….the underlying assumption that too many groundless malpractice suits are initiated is unfounded."[28]

The task force also noted, "Physicians surveyed by the study team underestimated the incidence of medically caused morbidity and mortality by a factor of 10."

Two comprehensive reviews of inpatient records in New York and California found that 0.8 to 1 percent of hospitalization results in adverse events caused by negligence. About one third of these adverse events results in permanent total disability or death.[29]

1991 the Harvard Medical Malpractice Study reported that medical malpractice causes 300,000 injuries annually in hospitals alone.[30] In March 2000 the Institute of Medicine reported that between 44,000 and 98,000 people die each year as a result of medical mistakes. [31]

From 1996 to 1999 Florida hospitals reported 19,885 incidents but only 3,177 medical malpractice claims. Six medical errors for only l claim filed.[32] Incidents included surgery performed on the wrong patient, a wrong procedure performed, a procedure performed on the wrong side, a foreign object left in a patient after surgery.

The trial lawyers association argues that only a small number of doctors cause the majority of the problems and that because the medical profession refuses to police its own ranks, lawsuits are the patient's only recourse. The Saint Louis Post-Dispatch maintains, "If states' medical boards did a better job of disciplining doctors, there likely would be fewer malpractice cases."[33]

A Public Citizen analysis of National Practitioner Data Bank records from September 1990 to September 2002 found that the 5.1 percent of doctors who paid two or more malpractice awards were responsible for 54 percent of all payouts. Only 7.6 percent of these doctors had been disciplined by state medical boards. Only 1 out of 6 who had five or more malpractice payouts had been disciplined. [34]

As noted above, only 1 of 8 patients who suffered injury due to medical negligence ever file claims. A 1991 analysis of phone calls to six law offices in five states found that only 3.3 percent of the medical malpractice-related calls initially received were filed as lawsuits.[35] Half of all claims are abandoned by plaintiffs.[36] And a significant number of jury verdicts favor the health provider.According to New Jersey's Administrative Office of the Courts of the 205 cases that went to jury verdict in 2002, doctors won 151.[37]

Liberals note that the data of Jury Verdict Research, which shows awards rising 100 percent between 1997 and 2000 is misleading because the company collects only jury verdict information.[38] According to the PIAA 96 percent of malpractice awards are a result of out-of-court settlements. [39] A better database is contained at the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), a government service that tracks malpractice claims, verdicts and settlements. The NPDB says the median payment for medical malpractice rose from $100,000 in 1997 to $135,000 in 2001.[40]

Liberals also note that level of award tracks the severity of the injury. The PIAA's Data Sharing Report found that the average indemnity paid for the least severe category of injury was $49,947. That increased to $454,454 for grave injuries that include quadriplegia, severe brain damage, lifelong care or fatal prognosis.[41]

Liberals maintain that capping malpractice awards has little or no effect on malpractice premium rates. Premiums have not risen more slowly in states with caps on pain and suffering awards, according to Lorraine Woellert, Business Week Legal Affairs columnist.[42]

Oh, and regarding the 'effectiveness' of tort reform (from the same site):

California Shows Effectiveness of Insurance Regulation

To liberals the moderation of insurance rates in California was not a result of capping jury awards but of regulating the industry.

In 1975 doctors in California protested rising malpractice insurance premiums by staging a sit-in at the statehouse. A landmark law was passed capping pain and suffering awards at $250,000. Similar measures were later copied in more than 20 states.

In the first 10 years after California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 was passed, malpractice rate increases in that state were about the same as the national average.

Only after Proposition l03 passed in 1988 did malpractice insurance rates, and other insurance rates decline in California while they increased nationwide. Proposition 103 instituted insurance reforms not tort reform.[43] It immediately rolled back insurance rates and disallowed unnecessary costs like excessive expenses, bloated executive sales and bad faith lawsuit costs. Proposition 103 also required insurers to open their books to justify rate increases. For the first time insurers were provided with financial incentives for efficient performance rather than simply being able to pass on costs to consumers.

Between 1988 and 2000 malpractice premium rates fell 8 in California while the national average rose 25 percent.[44]

Those who oppose capping malpractice awards deny that lawsuits have had a demonstrable affect on the use of "defensive medicine". The study by Kessler and McClellan cited by the federal HHS and many others estimated a savings of about 7 percent of the $8 billion Medicare spends annually on cardiac disease if caps and other reforms were put in place. When the Congressional Budget Office tried to duplicate the two economists' methodology to other types of ailments they found "no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending. Moreover, using a different set of data, CBO found no statistically significant differences in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts."[45] An Office of Technology Assessment study concluded, "it is impossible in the final analysis to draw any conclusions about the overall extent or cost of defensive medicine."[46]

Two investigations by independent government agencies have not supported the claim that rising malpractice premiums result in higher medical costs due to physicians practicing "defensive medicine". The CBO was asked by congress to quantify the savings from reduced "defensive medicine" if Congress passed HR4600. It declined, saying that any such "estimates are speculative in nature." It went on to say, "there is little empirical evidence on the effect of medical malpractice tort controls on spending for defensive medicine and more generally, on overall health care spending." Using broader measures of spending, the CBO's initial analysis could find no statistically significant connections between malpractice tort limits and overall health care spending.[47]

In August 2003 the GAO announced that it could not find any substantial confirmation of the practice of "defensive medicine". [48]

Aidon does not care about any of those, which number in the extreme majority, because there is no one to sue for those. No cash cow, no gold egg laying goose.

He can't sue the mom for killing her own kid.


Suing a crack mother for the death of her crack child is about as useful as sentencing a convicted murder to two death sentences.

You can't kill the dead and filing suit against the destitute only insures money gets wasted all around.

But, read the quote in my previous post.

Medical malpractice is real (despite what all the doctors and those who work for them will claim...while allowing coke head doctors to continue to practice).

Suing a crack mother for the death of her crack child is about as useful as sentencing a convicted murder to two death sentences.So instead of sentencing the convicted murder to a second sentence, you take an innocent third party and sentence <i>him</i>, just because you can? Lawsuits are only about the deepest pocket, not the truly responsible party.

As for the stuff you quoted, just because 1 in 8 files suit, doesn't mean that the suits, when filed, are excessive. It's also a matter of opinion whether those 8 actually received substandard care. And the lower rates in all of the "tort reform" states, compared to the "non tort reform" states, cannot be explained away as mere coincidence. It's common sense: if malpractice costs a lot more money, your insurer, which pays the judgment, is going to charge you more.

Malpractice is real, but outrageous lawsuits aren't the solution. Reasonable compensation for actual economic injury, plus strong policing of doctors, is.

Ok I have a silly question... since I am not a lawyer and really have no real experience with law related issues. What does tort mean? To me.. a tort is a delicious cake.

And.. as much as I would love to believe that all doctors are good and only make mistakes that are true human mistakes, I realize that is not always the case. Part of my managerial duties this past year was to become involved in the IHI's campaign 100k lives. Here (http://www.ihi.org/IHI/Programs/Campaign/) is a explanation of what that is.

Basically, it was developed by doctors who recoginze that mistakes happen, but we as part of the healthcare profession, can decrease these mistake by having set standards in place. It has actually been a remarkable campaign.

LOL.

Are you sure that you can apply Prop 103 to malpractice insurance?


That was the year where we had 4 initiatives on the ballot regarding auto insurance.


I need to rub some neurons together to remember all the details of that thing. IIRC a couple of them were defeated, and the others, or at least one, was tossed out because the Ca Supreme Court threw it out.

A "tort" is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. From William Prosser, who wrote a treatise most every law student has, a tort is "a term applied to a miscellaneous and more or less unconnected group of civil wrongs other than breach of contract for which a court of law will afford a remedy in the form of an action for damages."

Torts include negligence, trespass, assault, battery, wrongful death, interference with a business relationship, and the like. You can recover punitive/exemplary damages for a tort (as opposed to a breach of contract, for example).

So instead of sentencing the convicted murder to a second sentence, you take an innocent third party and sentence <i>him</i>, just because you can? Lawsuits are only about the deepest pocket, not the truly responsible party.

As for the stuff you quoted, just because 1 in 8 files suit, doesn't mean that the suits, when filed, are excessive. It's also a matter of opinion whether those 8 actually received substandard care. And the lower rates in all of the "tort reform" states, compared to the "non tort reform" states, cannot be explained away as mere coincidence. It's common sense: if malpractice costs a lot more money, your insurer, which pays the judgment, is going to charge you more.

Malpractice is real, but outrageous lawsuits aren't the solution. Reasonable compensation for actual economic injury, plus strong policing of doctors, is.

No, it is much simpler than that.

If Doctors didn't commit malpractice as often as they did...people wouldn't being suing them.

You need to start with strong policing of doctors and regulation of the insurance industry...and then, perhaps if needed, you take a look at tort issues.

And who are you to suggest a lawsuit is outrageous? 6 to 12 jurors (depending on venue and state) have sat, heard the evidence, and rendered judgement on these 'outrageous' lawsuits. That is the bedrock of our judicial system. To remove the power of the jury is to render our entire system of justice moot.

Are you sure that you can apply Prop 103 to malpractice insurance?


That was the year where we had 4 initiatives on the ballot regarding auto insurance.


I need to rub some neurons together to remember all the details of that thing. IIRC a couple of them were defeated, and the others, or at least one, was tossed out because the Ca Supreme Court threw it out.


Opening the books of the insurance companies to force them to justify and explain exactly why they are raising rates can only be a good thing.

The Dow Jones tanked by 140 points last night.

Expect insurance rates to rise. Don't blame attorneys, blame the Fed, the price of Gold, and the poor investment choices of Insurance companies.

If Doctors didn't commit malpractice as often as they did...people wouldn't being suing them.You're assuming every suit is prompted by actual malpractice. In reality, people file suits when (a) something bad happens and (b) they think they might have a legal right to cash in by blaming a deep pocket.And who are you to suggest a lawsuit is outrageous? 6 to 12 jurors (depending on venue and state) have sat, heard the evidence, and rendered judgement on these 'outrageous' lawsuits.The problem is the system they work under, not the minions themselves. Jury instructions are as comprehensible as Egyptian hieroglyphics to them, so they just follow the instructions of the most compelling attorney.

You're assuming every suit is prompted by actual malpractice. In reality, people file suits when (a) something bad happens and (b) they think they might have a legal right to cash in by blaming a deep pocket.The problem is the system they work under, not the minions themselves. Jury instructions are as comprehensible as Egyptian hieroglyphics to them, so they just follow the instructions of the most compelling attorney.

As I quoted, there are far, far more people who are seriously injured by malpractice who do not get just compensation than there are people who file unfounded malpractice claims. Something like a 7 to 1 ratio.

As for jury instructions...the attorneys for both sides, plus the Judge, sit down and figure out what jury instructions are given.

From this weeks New England Journal of Medicine.

Background In the current debate over tort reform, critics of the medical malpractice system charge that frivolous litigation — claims that lack evidence of injury, substandard care, or both — is common and costly.

Methods Trained physicians reviewed a random sample of 1452 closed malpractice claims from five liability insurers to determine whether a medical injury had occurred and, if so, whether it was due to medical error. We analyzed the prevalence, characteristics, litigation outcomes, and costs of claims that lacked evidence of error.

Results For 3 percent of the claims, there were no verifiable medical injuries, and 37 percent did not involve errors. Most of the claims that were not associated with errors (370 of 515 [72 percent]) or injuries (31 of 37 [84 percent]) did not result in compensation; most that involved injuries due to error did (653 of 889 [73 percent]). Payment of claims not involving errors occurred less frequently than did the converse form of inaccuracy — nonpayment of claims associated with errors. When claims not involving errors were compensated, payments were significantly lower on average than were payments for claims involving errors ($313,205 vs. $521,560, P=0.004). Overall, claims not involving errors accounted for 13 to 16 percent of the system's total monetary costs. For every dollar spent on compensation, 54 cents went to administrative expenses (including those involving lawyers, experts, and courts). Claims involving errors accounted for 78 percent of total administrative costs.

Conclusions Claims that lack evidence of error are not uncommon, but most are denied compensation. The vast majority of expenditures go toward litigation over errors and payment of them. The overhead costs of malpractice litigation are exorbitant.


It sounds like the reality is that the majority of people sueing are for reasonable circumstances. But, 54% of all the money being compensated are going to overhead costs. That's just nuts.

Yes, its expensive to file suit. If you get just what is due to compensate for your economic losses...you will come out behind.

Now...if insurers wouldn't try to avoid paying fully for errors, there would be less need for litigation. Sadly, however, only a fool deals directly with an insurance company for a significant tort claim, as the insurer will do everything it can to pay as little as it can.

Yes, its expensive to file suit. If you get just what is due to compensate for your economic losses...you will come out behind.Because the plaintiff's lawyer takes 33 cents out of every dollar, the lion's share of the "administrative expenses." Too much.

I just received a settlement notice from some class action against Netflix arguing that they didn't offer "unlimited" DVDs and 1 day turnaround. I, the "victim," get a 1 month free service upgrade (ironically worthless, given the allegations). Netflix isn't changing its policies in any way. The plaintiff's attorneys get $1,387,138 to $2,528,000 in attorney's fees -- and <b>I</b> will soon bear the burden of repaying that outrageous fee to Netflix, through higher monthly fees. Thanks plaintiff's lawyers.

I do have to note that a great deal of the expense is from needless and frivolous roadblocks that many defendants attempt to throw up to increase costs for the plaintiff(s).

Because the plaintiff's lawyer takes 33 cents out of every dollar, the lion's share of the "administrative expenses." Too much.

But the plaintiff's lawyer only gets paid if he wins the case. That means A) he needs to make enough from one case to cover the expenses racked up by his practice during the 2-3 years it takes that case to move from pre-filing through settlement or verdict. B) If he loses, he's done 2-3 years of work for free.

If a patient dies, the doctor still gets his paycheck.


I just received a settlement notice from some class action against Netflix arguing that they didn't offer "unlimited" DVDs and 1 day turnaround. I, the "victim," get a 1 month free service upgrade (ironically worthless, given the allegations). Netflix isn't changing its policies in any way. The plaintiff's attorneys get $1,387,138 to $2,528,000 in attorney's fees -- and <b>I</b> will soon bear the burden of repaying that outrageous fee to Netflix, through higher monthly fees. Thanks plaintiff's lawyers.

That's a class action. Class actions could use some work, but it has to be done carefully. Oh and that amount is probably going to be split amongst 20 or so attorneys.

But the plaintiff's lawyer only gets paid if he wins the case. That means A) he needs to make enough from one case to cover the expenses racked up by his practice during the 2-3 years it takes that case to move from pre-filing through settlement or verdict. B) If he loses, he's done 2-3 years of work for free.Straighforward cases can be settled very quickly, and the attorney still gets his cut, even if he only wrote a few letters and made a few phone calls. Plus, attorneys don't work on one case at a time, but dozens or hundreds at a time. It's not as if some guy is spending 24/7 on a single medical malpractice for three years just in the hopes of some verdict.Oh and that amount is probably going to be split amongst 20 or so attorneys.Try 2 attorneys (http://www.gutridesafier.com/who.htm): the number of members in the law office of the plaintiff's counsel. Tell me what great deed they've done, to merit millions of dollars. Netflix subscribers might as well just mail the plaintiff's counsel $1 each and spare the courts from the burden.

But the plaintiff's lawyer only gets paid if he wins the case.

Or settles.

He does not have to win to win.

Hail, hail,
Fire and snow.
Call the angel
We will go.

Far away.
For to see.
Friendly Angel
Come to me.

Hail, hail,
Fire and snow.
Call the angel
We must go.

Far to come
Far to see
Friendly Angel
Come to me.

Straighforward cases can be settled very quickly, and the attorney still gets his cut, even if he only wrote a few letters and made a few phone calls.

Straightforward cases don't come back with million dollar settlements or verdicts.

Plus, attorneys don't work on one case at a time, but dozens or hundreds at a time. It's not as if some guy is spending 24/7 on a single medical malpractice for three years just in the hopes of some verdict.

A single attorney, working major malpractice or other tort claims is going to hover around 20-25 cases at any given time, usually. The workload is simply too high for major cases. He probably only tries, two or three cases a year, though with many more settlements.

It is hard work and there are plenty of attorneys who wonder if they will be able to make payroll from month to month as they wait for a case to settle.

Try 2 attorneys (http://www.gutridesafier.com/who.htm): the number of members in the law office of the plaintiff's counsel. Tell me what great deed they've done, to merit millions of dollars. Netflix subscribers might as well just mail the plaintiff's counsel $1 each and spare the courts from the burden.

I don't know anything about this netflix case. However, all of the class actions our firm has been involved in also involved a number of other attorneys and firms.

Or settles.

He does not have to win to win.

It depends on the settlement, to be honest.

Our firm has frequently enough eaten costs and waived attorneys fees when, after settlement, our share would have been close to what the client would have taken home after paying meds and costs. My father always viewed it as the same as losing the case and that it wasn't fair to make the client pay because the firm didn't do well enough by him.

I thought this forum had a stink about it. There are so many lawyers here it's not funny! :devil-lau

Oh, I'm not an attorney.

Though a week doesn't go by where my family doesn't harrangue me to go to law school.

I'll probably break down and go one of these days, but the stress of being a PI attorney in a firm which only really deals with catastrophic injuries (injuries which prohibit a person from continuing their career, basically) can be overwhelming. I spent too much time working at the firm doing everything on cases but signing, taking deps, and arguing. I like my current job there, where I don't wake up in the middle of the night because I dreamt I blew a statute, or worrying if I could find sufficient articles and reports to get an expert past Daubert, or trying to brief a state Judge that the FELA and LIA don't permit contributory negligence.

The worst I have to deal with now is exchange going phutzy, too much spam, and my users accidently deleting case files (which happens far too often).

Oh, and our tape backup is acting hinky and one of my users is having VPN problems.