Tort reform?

jinx · 08-30-2004, 12:15 PM

MoJo article:

"The Washington Post reported at least 1,100 doctors had left Pennsylvania in recent years because of rising malpractice premiums caused by lawsuits, and a Time cover story declared that nationwide, doctors were retiring because of higher premiums resulting from "multimillion-dollar judgments awarded for tragic but sometimes unavoidable outcomes." It wasn't until nearly a year later, in April, that Pennsylvania Medical Society chairman Daniel Glunk told state legislators the truth: Rather than losing more than 1,000 doctors, Pennsylvania may have gained as many as 800 over the past two years. Around the same time, the state's deputy insurance commissioner reported that malpractice payouts had fallen for the second year in a row, and lawsuit filings were also declining. (Not that doctors necessarily benefited: Insurers, in Pennsylvania and nationwide, have raised premiums even as malpractice suits have declined.)"

TheSnake · 08-30-2004, 12:20 PM

John Edwards was part of the medical malpractice problem; albeit, not in Pennsylvania.

glatt · 08-30-2004, 01:04 PM

This is obviously a very complex problem. I think it's very simple minded to point to one area and say "it's all their fault."

The blame lies with the insurance companies, with the doctors making these mistakes, and with the a society that will sue at the drop of a hat.

I don't like any legislation that takes power out of the hands of a court. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to each malpractice suit. Sure, some people are trying to grab money in lawsuits. But there are also cases where the doctor is clearly in the wrong, and deserves the lawsuit.

Lets say I go in to have my tonsils removed, and the doctor performing the operation shows up drunk, and cuts through an artery, causing brain damage. The brain damage is so severe, I can no longer work, and I require costly 24 hr/day care for the rest of my life. My wife and kids depend on me for income to pay the bills, but I can't work any more. Also, my medical bills are shooting through the roof. In such a case, I think I would be well within my rights to sue the doctor for several million dollars to cover my lost earnings, and the expected future health costs. If some legislator pushes through a law that limits it to $200,000 or so, my family is screwed. We lose everything.

There needs to be room for a judge or jury to weigh the damage. It's a fundamental premise that our founding fathers put into the Constitution. They had the forsight to know that you can't write a law that will cover everything, so you need to have a little flexibility.

That's the reason that I am also opposed to mandatory sentencing for criminal acts.

jaguar · 08-30-2004, 01:19 PM

There are multiple aspects here and it requires a fairly deep understanding of tort law to get a full picture. Medical malpractice is only one part of it. Ever since Big Tobacco got fucked the Republicans have been calling for tort reform to stop virtually limitless damages from those kind of actions when a large class suit is brought - they get so large that noone dares let it go to judgement. Frankly I think it's a fantastic weapon against businesses that put consumers knowingly at risk with an air of impudy, the idea that they could have actions brought against them so large it could bankrupt them is a good disincentive, that said, some areas do need an overhaul.

This is in a sense 'think of the children!' version 2.0, a valid but minor part of a much larger battle that has been going on for a fairly long time now.

wolf · 08-30-2004, 02:07 PM

Psychiatric Malpractice insurance is about the cheapest to buy, I believe, because it's so difficult to prove damage. When one can display a physical deformity caused by a physician, it's pretty clear. Proving that someone is fucked up worse than when you started treatment with them in psychiatry is nigh impossible (even in the cases of recovered/false memory).

The personal effect of the malpractice boondoggle in PA is that I lost out on a raise ... by way of "belt-tightening" because the hospital which had been paying a couple hundred grand in malpractice insurance was suddenly having to pay around $2 Million per year.

Sometimes we put the "non" in "non-profit."

tw · 08-30-2004, 02:18 PM

It is wrong to say that limiting torts is the solution. PA set themselves up for massive payouts in malpractice because juries are not permitted anything in the jury room but their emotions.

I was appauled that we were not permitted to have testimony, or the court records, or even the judge's charge (how we are ordered to come to a verdict) in that jury room. Everything was based upon what little we could remember - followed by an auction for how high we would run the settlement up. Why did we go with the plantiff? Because she was the one who suffered the most emotion. Then we simply started bidding so that a $100,000 settlement quickly rose into the $millions. One would be amazed how in but minutes, then entire settlement was bid up to massive sums. The price went up without a single fact or reason presented for the bidding.

So I asked the judge afterwards why we are denied information. She said the State Supreme Court had decided that if written information was available to the jury, then then those who could understand those written facts would 'run' the jury. Manipulate the others based upon possession of information that the others did not comprehend.

We could not even remember the many points in that judge's charge to the jury. So we made up a list of point based upon a compromise as to what we though she had said.

We don't need tort reform. We need to provide juries with sufficient information. Without facts, then only emotion makes decisions. Therein lies the real need for tort reform.

Happy Monkey · 08-30-2004, 02:34 PM

Maybe "percentage of income (averaged over last 5 years)" would be better than dollar value when it comes to punitive damages, so massive companies couldn't just pay and forget, but small businesses and individuals wouldn't necessarily be destroyed.

xoxoxoBruce · 08-30-2004, 07:59 PM

As I understand it, tort reform only limits the punitive damages. All resulting costs incurred, are covered and therefore recovered. This includes medical bills and lost income. You just won't be an instant winner in the malpractice lottery.

breakingnews · 08-30-2004, 09:22 PM

Actually tort reform measures in PA are aimed at limiting non-economic damages. Reform advocates say punitive damages - the "punishment," if you will - should be the measure by which the jury decides how flagrant or negligent a doctor was - if he deliberately or wrongfully made an error to begin with.

What they want to limit are non-economic damages - the pain and suffering damages that have no economic equivalent whatsoever (does not include lost income, which *can* be calculated). The reason this debate has swirled around PA is because Philadelphia, being an extremely blue-collar town, tends to have more sympathetic juries who believe patients who suffer malpractice should be awarded excessively. Kelly Ripa's sister, who broke her ankle and had a series of complications following, had her malpractice case moved to Philly, where she picked up $10 million in mostly "non-economic" damages back in February. That same day, another woman was awarded something like $6 million. It could be more, but those are the numbers I'm remembering off the top of my head.

There's no one person to blame. It's the system and how it works.

Lawyers push patients to go after malpractice suits because a) they typically charge 30-40% of the final award (this was limited to 25-30% back in 1998 or so), and b) the legal process has too many loopholes and trials get dragged out for months and years, so malpractice insurance companies often settle before it gets too expensive.

Doctors then are forced to practice defensive medicine - running as many tests as possible, covering all the ground necessary, in case a malpractice suit arises. If it does, he needs a full file of tests and other documentation to cover his ass.

This in turn causes health care costs to rise, making it prohibitively expensive for a good portion of the population. Many go uninsured and do not seek preventative care - so when there is a catastrophic problem, they go to the ER where the hospital has to pick up the tab and is now open to potential malpractice claims (happened in a few Philly hospitals - patients are so sick that doctors are unable to do much, yet they still manage to eek out awards).

So who's really at fault? Hard to say. Lawyers seem to be the enemy, but they're just out to make a buck like the rest of us. And people who suffer significant damage that could have been prevented should be entitled to some compensation. Doctors should be thorough in the examining room, but not at the kinds of prices people are seeing on their bills these days.

elSicomoro · 08-30-2004, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

Without facts, then only emotion makes decisions.

And with facts, emotion still makes decisions.

08-30-2004, 12:15 PM	#1
jinx Come on, cat. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: general vicinity of Philadelphia area Posts: 7,013	Tort reform? MoJo article: "The Washington Post reported at least 1,100 doctors had left Pennsylvania in recent years because of rising malpractice premiums caused by lawsuits, and a Time cover story declared that nationwide, doctors were retiring because of higher premiums resulting from "multimillion-dollar judgments awarded for tragic but sometimes unavoidable outcomes." It wasn't until nearly a year later, in April, that Pennsylvania Medical Society chairman Daniel Glunk told state legislators the truth: Rather than losing more than 1,000 doctors, Pennsylvania may have gained as many as 800 over the past two years. Around the same time, the state's deputy insurance commissioner reported that malpractice payouts had fallen for the second year in a row, and lawsuit filings were also declining. (Not that doctors necessarily benefited: Insurers, in Pennsylvania and nationwide, have raised premiums even as malpractice suits have declined.)" __________________ Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good.

08-30-2004, 01:19 PM	#4
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	There are multiple aspects here and it requires a fairly deep understanding of tort law to get a full picture. Medical malpractice is only one part of it. Ever since Big Tobacco got fucked the Republicans have been calling for tort reform to stop virtually limitless damages from those kind of actions when a large class suit is brought - they get so large that noone dares let it go to judgement. Frankly I think it's a fantastic weapon against businesses that put consumers knowingly at risk with an air of impudy, the idea that they could have actions brought against them so large it could bankrupt them is a good disincentive, that said, some areas do need an overhaul. This is in a sense 'think of the children!' version 2.0, a valid but minor part of a much larger battle that has been going on for a fairly long time now. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

08-30-2004, 02:07 PM	#5
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	Psychiatric Malpractice insurance is about the cheapest to buy, I believe, because it's so difficult to prove damage. When one can display a physical deformity caused by a physician, it's pretty clear. Proving that someone is fucked up worse than when you started treatment with them in psychiatry is nigh impossible (even in the cases of recovered/false memory). The personal effect of the malpractice boondoggle in PA is that I lost out on a raise ... by way of "belt-tightening" because the hospital which had been paying a couple hundred grand in malpractice insurance was suddenly having to pay around $2 Million per year. Sometimes we put the "non" in "non-profit." __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

08-30-2004, 02:18 PM	#6
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	It is wrong to say that limiting torts is the solution. PA set themselves up for massive payouts in malpractice because juries are not permitted anything in the jury room but their emotions. I was appauled that we were not permitted to have testimony, or the court records, or even the judge's charge (how we are ordered to come to a verdict) in that jury room. Everything was based upon what little we could remember - followed by an auction for how high we would run the settlement up. Why did we go with the plantiff? Because she was the one who suffered the most emotion. Then we simply started bidding so that a $100,000 settlement quickly rose into the $millions. One would be amazed how in but minutes, then entire settlement was bid up to massive sums. The price went up without a single fact or reason presented for the bidding. So I asked the judge afterwards why we are denied information. She said the State Supreme Court had decided that if written information was available to the jury, then then those who could understand those written facts would 'run' the jury. Manipulate the others based upon possession of information that the others did not comprehend. We could not even remember the many points in that judge's charge to the jury. So we made up a list of point based upon a compromise as to what we though she had said. We don't need tort reform. We need to provide juries with sufficient information. Without facts, then only emotion makes decisions. Therein lies the real need for tort reform. Last edited by tw; 08-30-2004 at 02:23 PM.

08-30-2004, 02:34 PM	#7
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Maybe "percentage of income (averaged over last 5 years)" would be better than dollar value when it comes to punitive damages, so massive companies couldn't just pay and forget, but small businesses and individuals wouldn't necessarily be destroyed. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

08-30-2004, 12:20 PM	#2
TheSnake Resident President Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 83	John Edwards was part of the medical malpractice problem; albeit, not in Pennsylvania.

08-30-2004, 01:04 PM	#3
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	This is obviously a very complex problem. I think it's very simple minded to point to one area and say "it's all their fault." The blame lies with the insurance companies, with the doctors making these mistakes, and with the a society that will sue at the drop of a hat. I don't like any legislation that takes power out of the hands of a court. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to each malpractice suit. Sure, some people are trying to grab money in lawsuits. But there are also cases where the doctor is clearly in the wrong, and deserves the lawsuit. Lets say I go in to have my tonsils removed, and the doctor performing the operation shows up drunk, and cuts through an artery, causing brain damage. The brain damage is so severe, I can no longer work, and I require costly 24 hr/day care for the rest of my life. My wife and kids depend on me for income to pay the bills, but I can't work any more. Also, my medical bills are shooting through the roof. In such a case, I think I would be well within my rights to sue the doctor for several million dollars to cover my lost earnings, and the expected future health costs. If some legislator pushes through a law that limits it to $200,000 or so, my family is screwed. We lose everything. There needs to be room for a judge or jury to weigh the damage. It's a fundamental premise that our founding fathers put into the Constitution. They had the forsight to know that you can't write a law that will cover everything, so you need to have a little flexibility. That's the reason that I am also opposed to mandatory sentencing for criminal acts.

08-30-2004, 07:59 PM	#8
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	As I understand it, tort reform only limits the punitive damages. All resulting costs incurred, are covered and therefore recovered. This includes medical bills and lost income. You just won't be an instant winner in the malpractice lottery. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

08-30-2004, 09:22 PM	#9
breakingnews Q_Q Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: somewhere in between Posts: 995	Actually tort reform measures in PA are aimed at limiting non-economic damages. Reform advocates say punitive damages - the "punishment," if you will - should be the measure by which the jury decides how flagrant or negligent a doctor was - if he deliberately or wrongfully made an error to begin with. What they want to limit are non-economic damages - the pain and suffering damages that have no economic equivalent whatsoever (does not include lost income, which can be calculated). The reason this debate has swirled around PA is because Philadelphia, being an extremely blue-collar town, tends to have more sympathetic juries who believe patients who suffer malpractice should be awarded excessively. Kelly Ripa's sister, who broke her ankle and had a series of complications following, had her malpractice case moved to Philly, where she picked up $10 million in mostly "non-economic" damages back in February. That same day, another woman was awarded something like $6 million. It could be more, but those are the numbers I'm remembering off the top of my head. There's no one person to blame. It's the system and how it works. Lawyers push patients to go after malpractice suits because a) they typically charge 30-40% of the final award (this was limited to 25-30% back in 1998 or so), and b) the legal process has too many loopholes and trials get dragged out for months and years, so malpractice insurance companies often settle before it gets too expensive. Doctors then are forced to practice defensive medicine - running as many tests as possible, covering all the ground necessary, in case a malpractice suit arises. If it does, he needs a full file of tests and other documentation to cover his ass. This in turn causes health care costs to rise, making it prohibitively expensive for a good portion of the population. Many go uninsured and do not seek preventative care - so when there is a catastrophic problem, they go to the ER where the hospital has to pick up the tab and is now open to potential malpractice claims (happened in a few Philly hospitals - patients are so sick that doctors are unable to do much, yet they still manage to eek out awards). So who's really at fault? Hard to say. Lawyers seem to be the enemy, but they're just out to make a buck like the rest of us. And people who suffer significant damage that could have been prevented should be entitled to some compensation. Doctors should be thorough in the examining room, but not at the kinds of prices people are seeing on their bills these days.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)