Tort Reform: Pro or Against? (health care system, voted, California, billion)

[thecoalman]

Was watching C-span earlier and a Republican rep from Texas (A doctor) introduced an amendment for the health care bill that would have put a cap of $250K on the doctor, hospital and additional facilities for grand total of $750K. Another part of it would have required that any physician testifying a trial be a practicing physician which I find to be an excellent idea. Apparently it closely resembled what they did in Texas. Waxeman shot it down on a technicality right after he admitted they had done it in the past.

[Frank_Carbonni]

Originally Posted by witchseavey

So you're OK with Ford's behavior here?

Not so much in that case, but it happens.

Statistically, almost everything will kill someone at sometime. And it is a cost/benefit analysis that determines whether or not it is worth it to do something about it.

[witchseavey]

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

Not so much in that case, but it happens.

Statistically, almost everything will kill someone at sometime. And it is a cost/benefit analysis that determines whether or not it is worth it to do something about it.

I agree. But without punitive damages, the cost benefit analysis comes out differently and, in the case of the Pinto, very much in favor of Ford letting people die or suffer severe burns. So saying that everything has risk doesn't tell us very much about how we should arrange our legal system.

[Spot]

Originally Posted by Redisca

Tort reforms undertaken at state level have proven to be disastrous. Their effect was to limit people's ability to get redress when injured, but to leave insurance carriers free to raise their premiums. In fact, in several states where medical malpractice reform was undertaken, carriers promised up and down that they would lower their premiums if the bill passed -- but raised the premiums as soon as it did. In fact, payouts in at least malpractice cases declined precipitously in the last 15 years or so, even as premiums skyrocketed.

Tort reform is made to look as a grass-roots movement, but in fact, it is carried out by various industries and the rich. It is based on blatant misrepresentations (some "outrageous" cases are actually made up), and crucial information is invariably omitted. Also, if you are worried about frivolous litigation, you should be aware that nowhere is it as rampant as in the area of commercial litigation -- not torts.

Another thing you have to take into account is that lawsuits act as a regulatory scheme. If the threat of lawsuits is taken away, leaving tortfeasors free to commit negligence and fraud, then you would have to come up with some sort of administrative alternative designed to curb and punish abuses. Of course, that alternative will be funded by the taxpayers -- whereas the current regularly scheme is funded by the tortfeasors. Which do you think is more fair?

Precisely! The plaintiff's bar keeps bad actors in check without passing the cost on to the taxpayer.

Tort reform is nothing more than an attempt to protect wealthy corporate interests over the average guy.

Right now we are safe though, as long as the Dems are in charge there won't be any serious effort to reform tort law.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by Spot

Tort reform is nothing more than an attempt to protect wealthy corporate interests over the average guy.

People see lawsuits as a source of unearned monies.

The tort reforms most often sought is limiting the Punitive Damage award - not the elimination of them - limiting only.

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by Repubocrat

I was reading an article about tort reform and because I am considering going to law school, I was wondering if most people are pro or against tort reform?. It seems like tort reform has always been a pet project of the Republicans, however, most plaintiff attorneys support the current legislation because comprehensive tort reform would severely affect their earning power. What I find peculiar and hypocritical about the Republican position is the fact that they are pro free markets but tort reform in my opinion could be considered a form of economic intervention. What is your opinion?

Lawsuits ultimately benefits the greedy lawyers at the expense of the medical industries, destroyed many small businesses and costs taxpayers zillions of dollars. We need tort reform BADLY!

[Frank_Carbonni]

Originally Posted by witchseavey

I agree. But without punitive damages, the cost benefit analysis comes out differently and, in the case of the Pinto, very much in favor of Ford letting people die or suffer severe burns. So saying that everything has risk doesn't tell us very much about how we should arrange our legal system.

Not many people (myself include) want to scrap punitive damages, but rather cap the awarded amount and for non-tangible damages like "pain and suffering".

If someone acts recklessly or maliciously or knowingly concealed a risk, they deserve to be punished, but like all punishments, there is the possibility of being excessive.

And ultimately, the people who really suffer are shareholders and consumers. The top guns at Ford are protected from liability, since they are actually employees at Ford, they do not suffer directly from a massive settlements or costly court cases and finding out who actually authorized what is so difficult and involves so many people that it is often practically impossible to find out who did what in many cases. So, the money from the lawsuit ends up just being shifted to other products the company sells or is placed on the burden of the shareholders who's only mistake was investing in a company with scumbags in management.

[witchseavey]

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

Not many people (myself include) want to scrap punitive damages, but rather cap the awarded amount and for non-tangible damages like "pain and suffering".

If someone acts recklessly or maliciously or knowingly concealed a risk, they deserve to be punished, but like all punishments, there is the possibility of being excessive.

And ultimately, the people who really suffer are shareholders and consumers. The top guns at Ford are protected from liability, since they are actually employees at Ford, they do not suffer directly from a massive settlements or costly court cases and finding out who actually authorized what is so difficult and involves so many people that it is often practically impossible to find out who did what in many cases. So, the money from the lawsuit ends up just being shifted to other products the company sells or is placed on the burden of the shareholders who's only mistake was investing in a company with scumbags in management.

Given that the US Supreme Court has made it clear that a verdict won't pass constitutional muster unless there is a single digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages (say 8 to 1 as opposed to 11 to 1) I don't see how passing a bunch of caps are going to make things better. Capped punitives are just as easy to run in a cost benefit analysis. It's, at least in part, the unpredictability that keeps companies from putting really unsafe products on the market.

[nicet4]

Originally Posted by Repubocrat

I was reading an article about tort reform and because I am considering going to law school, I was wondering if most people are pro or against tort reform?. It seems like tort reform has always been a pet project of the Republicans, however, most plaintiff attorneys support the current legislation because comprehensive tort reform would severely affect their earning power. What I find peculiar and hypocritical about the Republican position is the fact that they are pro free markets but tort reform in my opinion could be considered a form of economic intervention. What is your opinion?

Trial lawyers have opportunistically capitalized on catastrophes in order to mine the deep pockets of big corporations. In a lawsuit stemming from an October 2001 incident where a man attacked a driver with a box cutter and caused the bus to crash, a jury held Greyhound liable for $8 million for one woman’s injuries. Why? The plaintiff’s attorney made much of an incident where one of Greyhound’s executives had raised the possibility of the use of driver partitions. Greyhound’s failure to implement this off-hand suggestion was used against them--never mind that no business operates like this, much less that the accident was intentionally caused by one of the bus crash fatalities.

Bogus silicon breast implant lawsuits killed Dow Chemical.

“The government on Friday rescinded a 14-year ban on silicone gel implants for cosmetic breast enhancement, a decision praised by some for providing women with a better product but criticized by others who still question their safety. … After rigorous review, the [Food and Drug Administration] can offer a ‘reasonable assurance’ that silicone implants are ’safe and effective,’ said Donna-Bea Tillman, director of the FDA Office of Device Evaluation.” (Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Daniel Costello, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 18). Silicone breast implants, available to consumers in most other countries, were driven from the market after a campaign of speculation and misinformation by trial lawyers and allied “consumer” groups, particularly Dr. Sidney Wolfe’s Public Citizen Health Research Group. The campaign resulted in billions in legal settlements over nonexistent autoimmune effects from the devices, none of which had to be repaid even after more careful scientific studies dispelled the early alarms. Chapter 4 of my book The Rule of Lawyers, which tells the story of the silicone litigation episode in detail, isn’t online. The New York Sun has an editorial drawing some of the appropriate conclusions (”Now They Tell Us”, Nov. 20)(& welcome Above the Law readers). More: Second Hand Conjecture channels Virginia Postrel (via InstaPundit).

[nicet4]

This is cute.

“Hearing-impaired football fan sues Ohio State”

by Walter Olson on July 20, 2009

“A hearing-impaired Ohio State University football fan has sued the school, arguing that the university should offer captioning on the scoreboard and stadium televisions because he can’t hear the announcers.” [Akron Beacon-Journal]