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.
If his suit is not meritorious as you claim, it will be dismissed, forming precedent for the easy dismissal of further cases with similar fact patterns. This happens all the time, it's just that the masses don't hear about it. Remember a few years ago when people were suing McDonald's because they were fat? Those cases were dismissed, and now people don't sue for that reason anymore. The majority of lawyers are not idiots; they know not to take cases that don't have a chance.
I just take issue with the punitive sanctions you're proposing. Just because you don't think a case has merit doesn't make it so, especially since society's values are ever-changing. A hundred years ago it was hard to sue for anything. The value of allowing everyone to pursue claims exceeds the chilling effect on justice such punitive measures would bring.
[quote=Interlude;19597323]If his suit is not meritorious as you claim, it will be dismissed, forming precedent for the easy dismissal of further cases with similar fact patterns. [quote]
Correct but this lawsuit now sets precedent that the school will not put itself in the situation and no longer allow alumni to help coach and practice with students. In my opinion it will be lost benefit for the students.
[quote=SilverBulletZ06;19597377]Yeah, wonderful effects. What is the cost of CYA medicine now, 30% or so of total care costs? How much are OB's paying in malpractice now?[quote]Oh boy now we're on tort reform? Do conservatives buy all their dumb opinions in some kind of package deal?
The need for tort reform is a boogeyman perpetuated by the insurance industry. Lawsuits, including legal fees, verdicts and settlements, are a very small, single-digit percentage (I think between 3-6%) of a health insurance company's budget. Insurance companies rise and fall on the efficiency of their management and how well they invest their premiums. Several states actually do have caps on pain and suffering damages in medical malpractice lawsuits. Guess what - insurance premiums there are exactly the same.
A much larger problem is the number of mistakes that doctors and hospitals make and the refusal of the profession to suspend or revoke the licenses of repeat offenders, who constitute the bulk of defendants in lawsuits.
Quote:
Its fine, I'll yield to your allowing the court to handle the case. But after they lose then pony up the bucks themselves for the defense fees.
Should all unsuccessful plaintiffs be forced to pay defense fees, or only in the cases that some non-attorney on the internet thinks have no merit?
Oh boy now we're on tort reform? Do conservatives buy all their dumb opinions in some kind of package deal?
The need for tort reform is a boogeyman perpetuated by the insurance industry. Lawsuits, including legal fees, verdicts and settlements, are a very small, single-digit percentage (I think between 3-6%) of a health insurance company's budget. Insurance companies rise and fall on the efficiency of their management and how well they invest their premiums. Several states actually do have caps on pain and suffering damages in medical malpractice lawsuits. Guess what - insurance premiums there are exactly the same.
Boogeyman. Wow.
You truly are DU a DU talking point poster. Also, your not comprehending what I am saying. I spoke about CYA MEDICINE, which is a direct result of fear of litigation. This is around 30% of HC costs, unneeded treatments, diagnostic tests, etc for the sole purpose of looking better in a courtroom. Its a very big part of why HC costs have gone up, your misunderstanding its portion in the cost of healthcare is pretty specatacular.
Quote:
A much larger problem is the number of mistakes that doctors and hospitals make and the refusal of the profession to suspend or revoke the licenses of repeat offenders, who constitute the bulk of defendants in lawsuits.
Licenses are suspended or revoked all the time. Review of licensure is taken on by review boards for the state.
Quote:
Should all unsuccessful plaintiffs be forced to pay defense fees, or only in the cases that some non-attorney on the internet thinks have no merit?
You truly are DU a DU talking point poster. Also, your not comprehending what I am saying. I spoke about CYA MEDICINE, which is a direct result of fear of litigation. This is around 30% of HC costs, unneeded treatments, diagnostic tests, etc for the sole purpose of looking better in a courtroom. Its a very big part of why HC costs have gone up, your misunderstanding its portion in the cost of healthcare is pretty specatacular.
The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology published a study in February from Columbia Presbyterian Hosptial / Cornell Weill Medical Center that devastates the arguments of the so-called “reformers.” The study found that “instituting a comprehensive obstetric patient safety program decreased compensation payments and sentinel events resulting in immediate and significant savings.” What does that mean in dollars and cents? It means that their payments due to malpractice plunged, as the graph in the upper right hand corner shows. Quoting the report itself: “The 2009 compensation payment total constituted a 99.1% drop from the average 2003-2006 payments (from $27,591,610 to $ 250,000).”
Plus, it's been shown that the high insurance rates these practitioners are paying has nothing to do with lawyers (http://insurance-reform.org/stablelosses2007rel-1.pdf - broken link):
Quote:
NEW YORK — Americans for Insurance Reform (AIR) announced today the release of Stable Losses/Unstable Rates 2007, a new study that examines fresh insurance industry data to determine what caused the most recent medical malpractice insurance crisis for doctors. The study by AIR, a coalition of over 100 consumer and public interest groups representing more than 50 million people, finds that the insurance crisis that hit doctors between 2001 and 2004 was not caused by claims, payouts or legal system excesses as the insurance industry claimed. Rather, according to the industry’s own data:
Inflation-adjusted payouts per doctor not only failed to increase between 2001 and 2004, a time when doctors’ premiums skyrocketed, but they have been stable or falling throughout this entire decade.
Medical malpractice insurance premiums rose much faster in the early years of this decade than was justified by insurance payouts.
At no time were recent increases in premiums connected to actual payouts. Rather, they reflected the well-known cyclical phenomenon called a “hard” market. Property/casualty insurance industry “hard” markets have occurred three times in the past 30 years.
During this same period, medical malpractice insurers vastly (and unnecessarily) increased reserves (used for future claims) despite no increase in payouts or any trend suggesting large future payouts. The reserve increases in the years 2001 to 2004 could have accounted for 60 percent of the price increases witnessed by doctors during the period.
Licenses are suspended or revoked all the time. Review of licensure is taken on by review boards for the state.
Then how come something like 5% of doctors are responsible for 57% of malpractice payouts?
Quote:
Yes, all should.
Well I don't expect you to actually think through any of your positions (you'd change your mind if you did), but it's rather easy to come up with scenarios where this is just a dumb policy - person of color trying to sue in a small, racist town; corrupt judges (read about what happens in Brooklyn); cases where large corporate defendants run up huge legal costs on purpose in order to dissuade plaintiffs from pursing cases, even ones that have merit; etc. I don't think it's even necessary to cite those examples, however. The public policy of making the court system accessible to the poor and vulnerable is reason enough.
Of course, you don't care about those people, so I guess that's not good enough.
I only wrestled one year in high school and former alumni did come to the practices to help out the students. That being said, on a legal standpoint, the suit could be directed at whether or not the alumnus had proper and documented permission to coach/assist the team. If there is none or no policy was in place, the school could be liable.
The lawsuit could also stem from the possibility that the injured kid's family is looking for a way to cover the medical bills. Besides, can a minor actually sue a person or entity or would his parents have to be the ones who pursue the lawsuit?
When I was in high school a student was injured in gym class by one of his friends; broke a limb in the process. They were playing a contact sport but other guy wasn't intending to hurt him that bad. He had a lot of medical bills his family couldn't afford so the parents sued the school to cover them. But apparently their lawyer recommended suing the other kid's family as well although I can't remember why. it caused both families to have animosity for each other, bringing a lot of grief for the injured kid. He just wanted to get back to a normal life and instead lost his friend in the process.
So before some of you start calling this kid a wimp who's just trying to catch a huge payout, don't assume what you read is the entire story.
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.
