Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It may be a bit different for a hospital and the sums of potential money are much greater and insurance carriers are more apt to just pay and dump the claim for business reasons. But I will maintain the percentages of meritless cases is the same. I work for a small company of 14 people and we have to only pay on cases that are legit.
And another thread here hijacked away from it's intent.
The intent of your thread was to ask and initiate a discussion on:
Quote:
Do we need tort reform?
I think you succeeded in initiating a discussion. I think there are issues much more important in healthcare than tort reform.
Do we need tort reform? How would it look such that it is fair to both sides?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET
Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1
I worked as an executive for three hospitals and heard this call for tort reform quite often. I agree with what markg91359 has written here. My experience is that medical malpractice attorneys typically only take the cases where they have a very high chance of winning. I think there are many more cases where a person should be compensated but a medical malpractice attorney won't take the case. I usually don't say this to my doctor friends.
My wife is currently in the hospital and received a minor injury from an inexperienced nurse who missed the vein on an IV. She was doing on the job training to be an ICU nurse. My father-in-law was in the hospital and his care was totally mismanaged by doctors who would take the time to communicate with each other. Medical malpractice happens more often than most people think. There should be more routine autopsies to determine the cause of death and allow hospitals and physicians to learn from their mistakes. We should never take the ability to sue away from someone who has been injured by a healthcare provider who is not practicing due diligence.
...
And another thread here hijacked away from it's intent.
How, exactly, has the thread been hijacked? Do you consider it hijacked just because people disagree with you? Did you expect a debate on something as divisive as tort reform to be one sided? The person you quoted directly addressed the first question in the topic being debated. The second question is a fallacy in that it can only be answered if the first question is already settled, and it really isn't even a debate-style question.
And just because you only pay out 10% of cases, that doesn't mean you are right 90% of the time. It just means the plaintiff didn't manage to prove their case 90% of the time.
Using your data but reading between the lines of your posts and adding more categories, I'd like to propose modification to your numbers and their explanation:
25% - Frivolous money-grabs (part of your 75%)
25% - People injured and trying to find someone to blame, but no negligence (part of 75%)
25% - People injured and trying to find someone to blame, non-liable minor negligence (part of 75%)
15% - People injured from negligence, but not able to prove their case so no payout (your 15%)
10% - People injured from negligence and able to prove it (your 10%)
I agree with the villageidiot for the most part. While there are definitely areas where the tort system can be improved, any changes must never remove the courts as a method to address grievances for any class of people.
Is It Time to Reform Tort Reform? | Politics | Houstonia
Tort reform has been a disaster in Texas for families, the poor, patients, etc. My anecdotal evidence suggests that most lawsuits are in fact not frivolous and is based on being married to a lawyer who does health care law for indigent children and adults. You can't hire a good attorney without a good case, a good case for damages, lots of money to hire experts, etc. Discovery is time-consuming and extremely expensive, Texas judges are, I think, more prone to grant summary judgment or dismiss a case in favor of defendants to get cases off their dockets, etc. All of that weeds out bad cases. Instead of tort reform, why doesn't the industry focus on patient safety, reducing medical errors, etc. And by the way, anyone who takes the time to read the whole background on the infamous McDonalds hot coffee case will see that it wasn't a frivolous case.
thanks for the link!
Agree, studied the MCdonald case in a college course and was amazed how the media twisted the suits claims.
I think the discussion on Tort Reform is necessary. We have a system that keeps leaning though towards the medical side bias. Thus leaving the plaintiff to suffer even after the facts are presented.
Taking one piece of company data and using it for national reform may fall flat. I think a more objective set of stats and rulings are required for most judicial reform to be set into motion. I respect the OP's intent to open the discussion.
Well, too bad about your link demand. Essentially, you're calling me a liar and that's fine. You can accept the truth or not and I could care less.
As to surveillance, I see where you're going and agree. I find it worthless and in the 14,000 claims I have handled have allowed it 3 times. Each time we knew the plaintiff and their attorney were pulling a fraud, proved it, and the lawsuit was dismissed. But I do find it a waste of time and routinely refuse to allow it.
Many on the insurance side of our legal system seem to be of the opinion that the tort reform that has already been enacted in many states has some real merit to it's corporate sponsors aggregate claim of being defrauded by those with criminal intent, and further, we see the claims of fraud coming from insurance corporations who themselves have a terrible record of expedient claim settlement not to mention a track record of non payment of claims due to some fancy legal maneuvering by their armies of lawyers.
Yeah, I think we do need tort reform, but not the kind the OP is advocating for. I'd love to see the insurance companies record of claim transactions be published for public scrutiny, both outcomes, negative OR positive, and let the public determine what the real need is with regard to how our laws are being enacted in the interest of the insurance corporations to the detriment of the citizenry. In the book titled "The invisible Bankers", author Andrew Tobias reveals a much different picture than the one the OP has offered, it clearly demonstrates the need for closer scrutiny of the unparalleled power held by insurance corporations in our ever diminishing democracy.
Doctors and insurance carriers have been taking home an unprecedented pile of the American overall wealth, high medical costs, high insurance premiums, hospital costs, and the allure of money reeking throughout the "industry" is more than a mere annoyance, their botched surgery tales are now part of our daily concern, far beyond that of their over the top costs. I can't count the times I've had to remind my own doc to carefully prescribe with respect to drug interactions, he is so busy that he often needs to be reminded of why I'm there in his office, he forgets the why's of my last appointment and at times seems overwhelmed by his own schedule.
Docs are human and we all make mistakes, but, their mistakes often result in death or severe injury, maybe the docs own system of overbooking patients would be a step in the right direction, leave the legal wrangling to the courts and the doctoring to those who could agree with the notion that the docs themselves can do a lot to ameliorate their sometimes poor track record. Self policing in the medical field is almost non existent, that alone says a lot about their claiming of innocence while hiring powerful insurance corporate lawyers to fight the public's claims of malpractice.
The thing I mostly see when insurance companies push tort reform is a claims cap, and they want to set the claims cap ridiculously low. On example is a malpractice case I am familiar with. An OB refused to perform a C-section for hours, even though the fetal monitor showed the fetus was in distress. The baby was born with severe brain damage, and will require skilled nursing care for it's entire life. Most of the claims caps I have seen discussed would cover the child for less than 5 years.
Only a few months later, the same doc was doing a tubal ligation, but cut and cauterized the woman's ureter instead. By the time the mistake was discovered she had lost a kidney. The state medical board jerked his license to practice after that one, but he just moved to Australia and went back into practice. Meanwhile, how do you set damages? A person can get along fine with one kidney, as long as it works. If the other kidney goes bad, it's dialysis and transplant time. She may not need that transplant for 30 years, so how do you set damages so she is covered? Damages would have to be huge.
What I see the OP asking for is to make it easier for the judge to issue a summary judgment for the defense. I don't see how you can do that without discovery.
Question.
What is a fair average , percentage wise, of 'smaller' claims, especially in general liability lawsuits, where the insurance company settles and pays simply because it's determined that it's cheaper than going to trial?
Do you think a lot of people count on this happening?
Question.
What is a fair average , percentage wise, of 'smaller' claims, especially in general liability lawsuits, where the insurance company settles and pays simply because it's determined that it's cheaper than going to trial?
Do you think a lot of people count on this happening?
In medical malpractice cases, my observation is that nuisance settlements are rare. Here are the reasons why:
1. Any medical malpractice settlement above $5,000.00 is publicly reported now. Doctors don't want the stigma of something like this on their record. A typical policy of insurance requires the consent of the physician in order for the insurance company to agree to a settlement. My point is that this reduces the number of settlements in both non-meritorious and meritorious cases.
2. Most insurance companies do not want to be thought of as "soft targets". They typically will not offer to settle even meritorious cases until a huge amount of pretrial discovery is done. This is a process that can easily last a year. It consists of depositions, interrogatories, and the accumulation of years of medical records.
3. Trials are not cheap, but they last only a limited period of time. The discovery period is generally considerably more expensive for insurance companies. By the time a case is ready for trial, probably 75% of the defense costs have been incurred.
4. Public agitation about tort reform and alleged abuses of the legal system have created a climate where many insurance companies believe their best course of action is to resist all but the most egregious cases. I think there is a perception among some that large, unwarranted settlements in these cases are common. In my experience, nothing could be further from the truth. I thank heavens I am not personally in the position of a person injured by medical negligence. You would learn quickly just how difficult recovering compensation can be.
Last edited by markg91359; 06-30-2016 at 08:48 AM..
I deal with medical malpractice and general liability lawsuits every day. I also read a lot about them and I am always amazed at how many totally meritless and frivolous lawsuits there are (thank you, California). If fact, after 25+ years in the business, I would say a reasonable breakdown would be this:
75% totally meritless money grabs
15% meritless or debatable, but I do see their perspective and why they filed
10% gross negligence
It's the defendant who takes it worse. Generally a case burns thru $25K getting past discovery and another $20-25K thru depos and finally setting strategy to dismiss (which ever increasing spineless judges will not do), mediation, trial or running the plaintiff attorney off.
Although statistics really vary, it is stated that 15 million lawsuits are filed each year in this country and if we presume 75% are entirely baseless and at an average cost of $50K per before they cease, that's $750 billion dollars wasted by individuals and businesses.
It seems to be we are in need of meaningful tort reform.
The easy answer is to have the loser pay for the other side's legal expenses. The problem with this is that many people who bring lawsuits haven't the money to do so, or people with so-so cases and not money to pay out of they lose are denied justice and recourse. It favors the wealthy and businesses for the most part.
I would like to see a screening or triage approach. A proposed lawsuit is screened by a panel for merit. If it fails there, but the plaintiff continues the lawsuit and loses, then they have some penalties that will sting.
Do we need tort reform? How would it look such that it is fair to both sides?
As an insurance attorney who has dealt with tort reform nation wide, I support tort reform. However, I respectfully disagree signficantly with your breakdown of cases. I've been auditing med mal results around the US for most of my career for reinsurers of the mutual medical insurers in all the states. It is no where near 75% of meritless cases. I would say over 90% of the cases are merit based valid lawsuits, the issue is not the cases, but the value of the cases. A valid case that has $25,000 in damages but gets a $250,000 jury verdict is what is driving cases forward.
Tort reform tends to follow the MICRA format we passed in California in the 70s. That includes a cap on noneconomic damages and review panels. All states that have tort reform have these two steps, and they do help controld costs. But the biggest issue in my opinion is that judges need to do what they are in place to do, control juries and knock down excessive awards. I don;t get your "thank you" California comments, since Cali has, maybe after Texas's 2004 package, the best tort reform in the US.
The screen approach is in place in many states and it helps. Any notion that would hit a plaintiff for filing a lawsuit would be unconstitutional and in my opinion a terrible idea, and I represent the ones that actually pay. Insurers don't want this. Tort reform should limit damages, but any business will tell you that liability insurance is a cost of doing business. You factor it into your costs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
