What's wrong with this study: Tort reform

[Yurt]

Texas Study Casts Doubt on Need for Tort Reform

HOUSTON (Reuters) - A study released on Thursday cast doubt on whether recent "tort reform" in Texas that limited payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits and is similar to what President Bush (news - web sites) wants nationally was really needed.



The study looked at Texas Department of Insurance records dating back to 1988 and found claims that medical costs were soaring because of too many malpractice lawsuits, the supposed reason for the reform, were not true.


"We find no evidence of the medical malpractice crisis that produced headlines over the last several years and led to legal reform in Texas and other states," said the study, conducted by law professors at the University of Texas, University of Illinois and Columbia University law schools.

Only a few states have comprehensive insurance databases like that of Texas, said David Hyman, one of the study authors, but similar studies elsewhere have found nothing to indicate a link between litigation and rising medical costs.

"Everyone who is collecting data is finding more or less the same thing -- there is no evidence of a tort crisis," he told Reuters.

"The clear implication is that What is so clear?? 'runaway medical malpractice litigation' makes a poor poster child for the cause of tort reform," said the study, which was released at the Texas law school in Austin.

...
But the study found that insurance payouts, jury awards in malpractice lawsuits and costs of legal defense had changed little between 1988 and 2002

Then ends with this..

The only thing that jumped, they said, was the cost of malpractice insurance, which rose 135 percent from 1999 to 2003 likely because of financial pressures that had nothing to do with litigation.

Now I ask you, there was financial pressure, hmmm, but this study peremporarily concludes that since malpractrice payouts were the same from 1988 2002, that this "financial pressure" could not have come from an abundance of high medmal suits.

Anybody see anything wrong with this? Or is it just me?

Link

 

[Bullypulpit]

The pressure originally came from declining stock values after the tech bubble burst. With decline investment revenues, malpractice insurers had to find another way to generate revenue...Their solution was to raise premiums on malpractice insurance to the point where they are driving alot of good docs out of practice. I know a few who have retired waaaay early because they were tired of this kind of bullshit.

 

[William Joyce]

Yeah, a "study" bashing tort reform out of Texas... where there's a law library named after Joe Jamail. Excuse me while I cough up a fucking lung.

We need tort reform badly. One of the few things I agree with the Chimp on.

 

[Yurt]

Ok, fair answers. I have no conclusion on this subject.

I do though wonder, if according to your post Bully, that medmal ins rates went up not for tort suits, rather for declining stock, then why do we need tort reform? Seems that ins have been able to pay this amount for over twelve years with no dramitic negative effects on Doctor's ins rates. Why then do you propose reform.

I forget the name of the case (BMW or State Farm I think) where the SCOTUS limited punitives to 10 times the actual damages. This was a great step in halting these absurd punitives that really only benefited the lawyers, not the clients, for these suits were almost wholly class action. CA has an interesting medmal law that limits medmal suit payouts, seems to have worked wonders here, but again, I am not overly familiar with this field. It is though a major topic among people I know, so if you could explain why you think there needs to be tort reform and in what fashion, would be interested.

 

[William Joyce]

You're right, SCOTUS limited punitives pursuant to due process concerns. My problem with allowing jack-off hairpiece lawyers to pursue punitive damages is that it essentially gives them a gun and a badge. Civil lawyers should be righting wrongs, not administering criminal punishment. We have someone to do that already. He's the district attorney.