Should there be limits on medical malpractice lawsuits? (insurance, how much)

[toll_booth]

Earlier this year, the Georgia State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that medical malpractice lawsuit caps are unconstitutional. This means that the only way to reinstate the caps would be via constitutional amendment. It's too late to have one for 2010, but 2012 is far enough down the horizon to have such a ballot measure.

The question, then, is should there be such a limit? If so, should there be a difference between compensatory damages (restoration costs of the damage itself) and punitive damages (costs above and beyond this, as a form of punishment)?

[flyonpa]

I'd like a 4th choice. Loser Pays, The Contingency lawyers would have real $'s in the game, So they would only take cases that have True merit.

[MacDexter]

Medical malpractice is used as weapons these days, there should be more guidelines so that person filing lawsuit will have limitations to sue.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by flyonpa

I'd like a 4th choice. Loser Pays, The Contingency lawyers would have real $'s in the game, So they would only take cases that have True merit.

Exactly. Ambulance chasing, TV advertising lawyers who take cases on contingency are helping in driving up the costs throughout the system. There have to be caps and a loser pays type arrangement.

We're complaining on the one hand that we have a shortage of doctors and medical costs are getting out of control, and on the other hand we're allowing a system to continue that drives insurance and cost of doing business into the stratosphere.

[rcsteiner]

It's too easy to play the courts like a lottery in the US, and that isn't limited to medical lawsuits. The same is true for patent law, copyright law, and many other areas.

People who bring frivolous lawsuits in this country don't seem to be punished for that action, which means that people with deep pockets can go on fishing expeditions in the court system without much risk.

Of course, the legal industry generally doesn't mind. Win or lose, counsel still gets paid.

The courts in the US aren't about justice, anyway, but seem to be more about following the letter of the law while trying to remain consistent with existing case law.

IANAL, but I have followed sites like Groklaw and Lamlaw for many years, and what I've learned about our court system has not convinced me that justice and the US court system have much in common.

[912]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Exactly. Ambulance chasing, TV advertising lawyers who take cases on contingency are helping in driving up the costs throughout the system. There have to be caps and a loser pays type arrangement.

Another thing I'd like to see banned: Ken Nugent style commercials that show how much you "may" get if his office represents you. Also, Chiropractors that advertise the "importance" of their services in order for you to score "that big check"! Both kinds of advertising are a disservice to both honest lawyers & doctors.

[cityrover]

some of the best medications have been pulled out of the us market because of class action lawsuits.

Ok folks.. you read the side effects, you took the chance. Why sue? Greed. So now, you suffer with no meds and those with the means import them grey market.

Malpractice suits and class action suits are different yet the same in that they only lead to higher med costs. I have a naive view on medicine but i want my doctors to cure me, not think how to legally cover themselves in case i decide to sue.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Exactly. Ambulance chasing, TV advertising lawyers who take cases on contingency are helping in driving up the costs throughout the system. There have to be caps and a loser pays type arrangement.

We're complaining on the one hand that we have a shortage of doctors and medical costs are getting out of control, and on the other hand we're allowing a system to continue that drives insurance and cost of doing business into the stratosphere.

The problem with a loser pays system is that the big guy always hold the cards. Say you get a pain injection and the doctor hits your spinal cord and paralyzes your legs. Can you risk making a claim knowing there's a chance his insurance company will pop you with $200K in legal fees? Or do you just have to grin and bear it?

The stuff I've read says malpractice settlements, legal fees and defensive medicine only amount to around 2.4% of medical costs. If you figure that even half those claims are valid, then you're at 1% or so.

Malpractice Litigation, Defensive Medicine Cost Less Than Thought

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

It's too easy to play the courts like a lottery in the US, and that isn't limited to medical lawsuits. The same is true for patent law, copyright law, and many other areas.

People who bring frivolous lawsuits in this country don't seem to be punished for that action, which means that people with deep pockets can go on fishing expeditions in the court system without much risk.

Of course, the legal industry generally doesn't mind. Win or lose, counsel still gets paid.

I don't think attorneys for the plaintiff get paid if they lose.

A lot of the talk about runaway litigation and giant verdicts is urban legend. The judges say they almost never see it.


Of Frivolous Litigation and Runaway Juries: A View from the Bench

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by flyonpa

I'd like a 4th choice. Loser Pays, The Contingency lawyers would have real $'s in the game, So they would only take cases that have True merit.

I agree with the "loser pays" rule as well. This could greatly help to separate frivolous lawsuits from legitimate ones. And because this would mean less time in the courts, it would mean fewer government expenditures as well.

Given the remaining options, I picked the second one. Punitive damages are IMO rather subjective, but suing for compensatory damages makes more sense. After all, if somebody causes damage to you that requires money to fix, it's only fair that they pay up. But above and beyond that--the punitive part--is debatable. That's why I favor a $250,000 cap, open to debate of course, on punitive damages against doctors.