Wonder why TORT reform is an issue?

[gallantwarrior]

Anyone else notice the irony of the ads that are at the top of this page, at least as I am writing this post?

"Medical malpractice? Pain and suffering? Need to talk to an attorney?"
"Medical negligence lawyer. Free case evaluation."

I'm not saying there aren't frivolous lawsuits. Of course there are. And I'm not saying there aren't scumbag attorneys out there who chase ambulances and prey on the injured. Of course there are. I recognize that. But there are also legitimate attorneys who handle legitimate cases for legitimate plaintiffs with legitimate claims and legitimate damages. I'm wondering if people like Katzndogz recognize THAT. So far, I haven't seen it.

The 'bots pick up on key words in the thread and the adverts follow.

 

[Katzndogz]

I know there are other opinions, they are BS! Tort lotto is still alive and very well. Multi million dollar settlements are still the norm. Lawyers are just more creative on how they puff up those frivolous claims.

A loser pays system, to be effective, needs to extend beyond the claimant into the plaintiff's attorney. That way, when the attorney KNOWS the case is crap, and an investigator is filming his crippled client on a ski trip, they'll drop the case.

The trend of doctors filing immediate suit themselves against plaintiffs and their attorneys has had a beneficial effect in limiting SOME frivolous claims, but not nearly enough.

What would you say to a LEGITIMATE claimant who has sustained LEGITIMATE damages in an amount of five million dollars, for medical malpractice, in a jurisdiction that caps settlements/awards for such damages at $250K?

What would you say to that person?

What kind of damages would justify an award of five million dollars?

You would be surprised! Mostly though, in products liability. The problem that plaintiffs (and their attorneys face) is that eveyone pretty much feels that their case is the case of the year. Pain is priceless. Loss of ability to do what you normally do is priceless. The limits of the sky is not enough. I remember one woman who was in an accident and could no longer do her Buns of Steel excercises every morning to the video she bought. She wanted ten million dollars for her loss. That wasn't enough but it might come close.

 

[geauxtohell]

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, What’s the Most Frivolous Lawsuit of All?

A California restaurant has been sued because one of its bathroom mirrors was two inches too high.

After the original mirror was vandalized, restaurant owner Ron Piazza replaced it with a new mirror that was set two inches higher than the old one, allegedly in non-compliance with California’s disabilities laws. Before Piazza became aware of and corrected the mistake, three plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit claim to have visited the restaurant a total of 27 times over a three-month period and allege that they suffered damages on each visit.

“It would have been very easy for them to let us know that the mirror was a couple of inches too high, and we could have taken care of that right away,” Piazza said. “Had I not lowered the mirror, they probably would have continued to come and log more visits … It’s very clear to me that they were instructed by someone who really knew the law on how many times to visit, what to look for.”

Thanks to a new national campaign sponsored by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform called “Faces of Lawsuit Abuse,” Piazza’s story is being told to highlight abusive lawsuits and the impact on small businesses, many of which are family -- or locally --owned.

“Abuse lawsuits are not victimless,” said ILR President Lisa Rickard. “Many people think big-dollar lawsuits are only filed against ‘deep pocket’ corporations. Yet, in this current economic climate, many locally-owned businesses like Ron Piazza’s are just one lawsuit away from closing their doors.”

To learn more about Faces of Lawsuit Abuse and to view a short video of Piazza’s story, visit Faces of Lawsuit Abuse.org.

—Source: Faces of Lawsuit Abuse.org

[Posted April 16, 2009]

Sued and lost or just sued? We don't need tort reform, we just need people who aren't scared to go to court and demand how a mirror being two inches too high equates to damages.

No need to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[geauxtohell]

Jillian we are not talking about the aqbility to sue though their clearly should be some limits. What person in their right minds thinks the court system ought to be clogged with suits such as the one beginning the thread over the heighth of bathroom mirrors?

If you are proposing limits, you are talking about ability.

You would think that would be obvious.

 

[geauxtohell]

The man that filed that lawsuit over the two inches filed hundreds of lawsuits. He has since been permanently enjoined from filing any lawsuits without the prior approval of a judge.

A similar case involved the Trevor Law Group in California that filed thousands of lawsuits over trivia. The Trevor attorneys have all been disbarred and most of them were sent to prison.

Yes, tort reform is necessary.

I trust you are aware of the hidden agenda behind "tort reform" legislation. It has very little to do with the removal of "frivolous litigation" and an awful lot more to do with fostering the financial well-being of the fat cats at the expense of individual members of society.

You see, "tort reform" most typically appears in the form of caps on damages that can be awarded for certain types of liability cases, mainly personal injury cases. It makes no distinction between the valid claim and the invalid claim. Hence, a person with a genuine and legitimate claim for personal injury that is worth somewhere in the millions of dollars, will only be allowed damages in the amount of the cap. In California, that cap is $200,000.00, based upon a law that was enacted in the 1970's under the economy that was then in effect. At present economy levels, that cap should be in the neighborhood of two million, but our conservative state government has never seen fit to raise it.

Be very, very wary of "tort reform." It is not designed to help you, as an individual, in any way.

Liberals believe in tort lotto!

The cap in California is for $250,000 and limited to pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases. The sky is still very much the limit everywhere else.

The reason why the cap in medical malpractice cases was to stop doctors from leaving the state. As it is, the defensive medicine practiced by doctors to keep down malpractice claims has caused medical care to skyrocket.

Wait a minute. You just claimed that we need tort reform in a state that already has tort reform? You want additional reform? Perhaps you should be more clear.

 

[Katzndogz]

I trust you are aware of the hidden agenda behind "tort reform" legislation. It has very little to do with the removal of "frivolous litigation" and an awful lot more to do with fostering the financial well-being of the fat cats at the expense of individual members of society.

You see, "tort reform" most typically appears in the form of caps on damages that can be awarded for certain types of liability cases, mainly personal injury cases. It makes no distinction between the valid claim and the invalid claim. Hence, a person with a genuine and legitimate claim for personal injury that is worth somewhere in the millions of dollars, will only be allowed damages in the amount of the cap. In California, that cap is $200,000.00, based upon a law that was enacted in the 1970's under the economy that was then in effect. At present economy levels, that cap should be in the neighborhood of two million, but our conservative state government has never seen fit to raise it.

Be very, very wary of "tort reform." It is not designed to help you, as an individual, in any way.

Liberals believe in tort lotto!

The cap in California is for $250,000 and limited to pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases. The sky is still very much the limit everywhere else.

The reason why the cap in medical malpractice cases was to stop doctors from leaving the state. As it is, the defensive medicine practiced by doctors to keep down malpractice claims has caused medical care to skyrocket.

Wait a minute. You just claimed that we need tort reform in a state that already has tort reform? You want additional reform? Perhaps you should be more clear.

I claimed that tort reform is necessary, not particularly limited to California. And, if you paid attention the tort reform that happened was limited to medical malpractice cases. No doubt other areas of the law would benefit from tort reform too. Loser pays would go a long long way to achieving that. Of course it would have to include attorneys too. Not only clients. Some poor clients routinely pick up a few extra bucks suing someone, anyone without worrying at all about losing. They have no money anyway. Some sleaze bag lawyer will take the case. If they lose, no big deal. So make it a big deal. Stop making frivolous lawsuits a crap shoot.

 

[rdean]

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, What’s the Most Frivolous Lawsuit of All?

A California restaurant has been sued because one of its bathroom mirrors was two inches too high.

After the original mirror was vandalized, restaurant owner Ron Piazza replaced it with a new mirror that was set two inches higher than the old one, allegedly in non-compliance with California’s disabilities laws. Before Piazza became aware of and corrected the mistake, three plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit claim to have visited the restaurant a total of 27 times over a three-month period and allege that they suffered damages on each visit.

“It would have been very easy for them to let us know that the mirror was a couple of inches too high, and we could have taken care of that right away,” Piazza said. “Had I not lowered the mirror, they probably would have continued to come and log more visits … It’s very clear to me that they were instructed by someone who really knew the law on how many times to visit, what to look for.”

Thanks to a new national campaign sponsored by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform called “Faces of Lawsuit Abuse,” Piazza’s story is being told to highlight abusive lawsuits and the impact on small businesses, many of which are family -- or locally --owned.

“Abuse lawsuits are not victimless,” said ILR President Lisa Rickard. “Many people think big-dollar lawsuits are only filed against ‘deep pocket’ corporations. Yet, in this current economic climate, many locally-owned businesses like Ron Piazza’s are just one lawsuit away from closing their doors.”

To learn more about Faces of Lawsuit Abuse and to view a short video of Piazza’s story, visit Faces of Lawsuit Abuse.org.

—Source: Faces of Lawsuit Abuse.org

[Posted April 16, 2009]

Sure, silly things pop up all the time. But the REAL reason Republicans want tort reform is to protect the rich from those they have abused.

 

[geauxtohell]

I know there are other opinions, they are BS! Tort lotto is still alive and very well. Multi million dollar settlements are still the norm. Lawyers are just more creative on how they puff up those frivolous claims.

A loser pays system, to be effective, needs to extend beyond the claimant into the plaintiff's attorney. That way, when the attorney KNOWS the case is crap, and an investigator is filming his crippled client on a ski trip, they'll drop the case.

The trend of doctors filing immediate suit themselves against plaintiffs and their attorneys has had a beneficial effect in limiting SOME frivolous claims, but not nearly enough.

What would you say to a LEGITIMATE claimant who has sustained LEGITIMATE damages in an amount of five million dollars, for medical malpractice, in a jurisdiction that caps settlements/awards for such damages at $250K?

What would you say to that person?

What kind of damages would justify an award of five million dollars?

Life, limb, or eyesight.

How much are those things worth to you?

 

[geauxtohell]

Liberals believe in tort lotto!

The cap in California is for $250,000 and limited to pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases. The sky is still very much the limit everywhere else.

The reason why the cap in medical malpractice cases was to stop doctors from leaving the state. As it is, the defensive medicine practiced by doctors to keep down malpractice claims has caused medical care to skyrocket.

Wait a minute. You just claimed that we need tort reform in a state that already has tort reform? You want additional reform? Perhaps you should be more clear.

I claimed that tort reform is necessary, not particularly limited to California. And, if you paid attention the tort reform that happened was limited to medical malpractice cases. No doubt other areas of the law would benefit from tort reform too. Loser pays would go a long long way to achieving that. Of course it would have to include attorneys too. Not only clients. Some poor clients routinely pick up a few extra bucks suing someone, anyone without worrying at all about losing. They have no money anyway. Some sleaze bag lawyer will take the case. If they lose, no big deal. So make it a big deal. Stop making frivolous lawsuits a crap shoot.

Yes. I saw your asinine bursitis vignette. You're "failure to warn" example was equally asinine. A reasonable person would know that they should abstain from high impact sports. In all the discharges I've seen, I've yet to see a physician freak out that patient wasn't discharged with adequate "warning" on what they couldn't do.

"Loser pays" is a sham boondoggle for the insurance companies. It's also no just. Do we imprison plaintiffs in criminal cases when they lose?

 

[Katzndogz]

Wait a minute. You just claimed that we need tort reform in a state that already has tort reform? You want additional reform? Perhaps you should be more clear.

I claimed that tort reform is necessary, not particularly limited to California. And, if you paid attention the tort reform that happened was limited to medical malpractice cases. No doubt other areas of the law would benefit from tort reform too. Loser pays would go a long long way to achieving that. Of course it would have to include attorneys too. Not only clients. Some poor clients routinely pick up a few extra bucks suing someone, anyone without worrying at all about losing. They have no money anyway. Some sleaze bag lawyer will take the case. If they lose, no big deal. So make it a big deal. Stop making frivolous lawsuits a crap shoot.

Yes. I saw your asinine bursitis vignette. You're "failure to warn" example was equally asinine. A reasonable person would know that they should abstain from high impact sports. In all the discharges I've seen, I've yet to see a physician freak out that patient wasn't discharged with adequate "warning" on what they couldn't do.

"Loser pays" is a sham boondoggle for the insurance companies. It's also no just. Do we imprison plaintiffs in criminal cases when they lose?

But of course a liberal would think that insurance companies should pay the loser even when it's the insurance company that wins!

I don't know why you would imagine some sort of prison sententence (which SHOULD be done when the plaintiff is caught lying) except that hyperbole is the knee jerk reaction of liberals.

 

[George Costanza]

What would you say to a LEGITIMATE claimant who has sustained LEGITIMATE damages in an amount of five million dollars, for medical malpractice, in a jurisdiction that caps settlements/awards for such damages at $250K?

What would you say to that person?

What kind of damages would justify an award of five million dollars?

You would be surprised! Mostly though, in products liability. The problem that plaintiffs (and their attorneys face) is that eveyone pretty much feels that their case is the case of the year. Pain is priceless. Loss of ability to do what you normally do is priceless. The limits of the sky is not enough. I remember one woman who was in an accident and could no longer do her Buns of Steel excercises every morning to the video she bought. She wanted ten million dollars for her loss. That wasn't enough but it might come close.

I'm surprised you failed to mention the McDonald's coffee scalding case.

You can dredge up all of the horrible examples of frivolous lawsuits you want - it doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of totally legitimate lawsuits that deserve just compensation to the injured party.

You consistently fail to recognize that. But that's ok - I understand. There IS NO answer for what happens to the legitimate claims when there are arbitrary caps on liability except one: Tough Shit.

It's the same, old Republican Theme played out once again, this time in the context of civil liability cases: I've got mine - screw you.

 

[Katzndogz]

What kind of damages would justify an award of five million dollars?

You would be surprised! Mostly though, in products liability. The problem that plaintiffs (and their attorneys face) is that eveyone pretty much feels that their case is the case of the year. Pain is priceless. Loss of ability to do what you normally do is priceless. The limits of the sky is not enough. I remember one woman who was in an accident and could no longer do her Buns of Steel excercises every morning to the video she bought. She wanted ten million dollars for her loss. That wasn't enough but it might come close.

I'm surprised you failed to mention the McDonald's coffee scalding case.

You can dredge up all of the horrible examples of frivolous lawsuits you want - it doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of totally legitimate lawsuits that deserve just compensation to the injured party.

You consistently fail to recognize that. But that's ok - I understand. There IS NO answer for what happens to the legitimate claims when there are arbitrary caps on liability except one: Tough Shit.

It's the same, old Republican Theme played out once again, this time in the context of civil liability cases: I've got mine - screw you.

It's not my fault that you don't know what legitimate compensation is. There is no cap on legitimate compensatory losses a fact that you refuse to recognize. You keep thinking there is. There isn't. So, go flail into the wind.

 

[George Costanza]

You would be surprised! Mostly though, in products liability. The problem that plaintiffs (and their attorneys face) is that eveyone pretty much feels that their case is the case of the year. Pain is priceless. Loss of ability to do what you normally do is priceless. The limits of the sky is not enough. I remember one woman who was in an accident and could no longer do her Buns of Steel excercises every morning to the video she bought. She wanted ten million dollars for her loss. That wasn't enough but it might come close.

I'm surprised you failed to mention the McDonald's coffee scalding case.

You can dredge up all of the horrible examples of frivolous lawsuits you want - it doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of totally legitimate lawsuits that deserve just compensation to the injured party.

You consistently fail to recognize that. But that's ok - I understand. There IS NO answer for what happens to the legitimate claims when there are arbitrary caps on liability except one: Tough Shit.

It's the same, old Republican Theme played out once again, this time in the context of civil liability cases: I've got mine - screw you.

It's not my fault that you don't know what legitimate compensation is. There is no cap on legitimate compensatory losses a fact that you refuse to recognize. You keep thinking there is. There isn't. So, go flail into the wind.

You are taking the position that the only "legitimate" damages are compensatory damages and that damages for pain and suffering are, by definition, illegitimate. Unfortunately for your position, that is not the law.

When I talk about "legitimate" damage claims, I am talking ONLY about damages for pain and suffering. Compensatory damages don't even enter into the discussion because there is no issue as to compensatory damages - they are what they are; nothing whatsoever subjective about computing compensatory damages.

And so I say again - there are plenty of legitimate lawsuits, with legitmate claims for damages comprised of both complensatory damages and damages for pain and suffering. If you place an arbitrary cap on damages for pain and suffering, you are depriving injured parties in legitimate lawsuits, of just compensation for such (pain and suffering) damages.

Compensation for compensatory damages alone is insufficient when, as is so often the case, legitimate damages for pain and suffering also exist.

 

[Katzndogz]

Pain and suffering is subject to a cap in medical malpractice cases because fools find pain and suffering priceless.

 

[George Costanza]

Pain and suffering is subject to a cap in medical malpractice cases because fools find pain and suffering priceless.

I see. Brilliant analysis.

So what's your position on damages for pain and suffering - should they be awarded at all? Or simply taken out of the picture entirely?

 

[jillian]

Pain and suffering is subject to a cap in medical malpractice cases because fools find pain and suffering priceless.

I see. Brilliant analysis.

So what's your position on damages for pain and suffering - should they be awarded at all? Or simply taken out of the picture entirely?

sad, isn't he?

 

[jillian]

It's not my fault that you don't know what legitimate compensation is. There is no cap on legitimate compensatory losses a fact that you refuse to recognize. You keep thinking there is. There isn't. So, go flail into the wind.

actually, he knows exactly what legitimate compensation is.

you, unfortunately, do not, yet keep spewing your stupidity.

wackjob.

 

[Katzndogz]

Then you all keep yammering on exposing your idiocy and the sensible people will keep imposing caps!

The left is driven by "feelings". Feelings are priceless. There is no amount of money in the world to pay for how you FEEL about that papercut. That's why knowledable people have to step in and put you in your place.

Keep stamping your feet and shaking your curls Shirley Temple, there will still be caps and they will expand in scope.

 

[George Costanza]

The left is driven by "feelings". Feelings are priceless. There is no amount of money in the world to pay for how you FEEL about that papercut. That's why knowledable people have to step in and put you in your place.

If the left is driven by "feelings," what drives the right? Insensitivity? Intolerance? Lack of empathy or sympathy for others? Based on your comments on this thread, I would say pretty much all of those.

I hope that you or someone you love, are never put in the position of having a very important part of your life forever taken away from you by someone else's negligence. If that ever does happen, I'm sure that you will not be seeking compensation for it. After all, you appear to be one of the "knowledgeable people" mentioned in your post here.

Keep stamping your feet and shaking your curls Shirley Temple, there will still be caps and they will expand in scope.

Not so long as Republicans are out of power.

One more thought - you accuse the left of being driven by feelings as if there was something wrong with that. I would offer that your comments on this thread about liability caps seem driven entirely by your feelings on the subject - because they certainly do not seem to be supported by logic, the law on the subject or even factual reality, for that matter.

 

[jillian]

The left is driven by "feelings". Feelings are priceless. There is no amount of money in the world to pay for how you FEEL about that papercut. That's why knowledable people have to step in and put you in your place.

If the left is driven by "feelings," what drives the right? Insensitivity? Intolerance? Lack of empathy or sympathy for others? Based on your comments on this thread, I would say pretty much all of those.

I hope that you or someone you love, are never put in the position of having a very important part of your life forever taken away from you by someone else's negligence. If that ever does happen, I'm sure that you will not be seeking compensation for it. After all, you appear to be one of the "knowledgeable people" mentioned in your post here.

Keep stamping your feet and shaking your curls Shirley Temple, there will still be caps and they will expand in scope.

Not so long as Republicans are out of power.

One more thought - you accuse the left of being driven by feelings as if there was something wrong with that. I would offer that your comments on this thread about liability caps seem driven entirely by your feelings on the subject - because they certainly do not seem to be supported by logic, the law on the subject or even factual reality, for that matter.

you're very patient, george. i always wonder why people like you, who know your subject, indulge his brand of ranting and raving.

you're a better man than i am, gunga din.