Tort reform

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Big_Bill

My post was not intended for you D-Ray,

Lawyers are greatly needed and appreciated for their outstanding knowledge of law !

It is just that those that take cases that they know have no merit, with hopes of settling them out of court, that I find offensive.

Finding a good lawyer is like finding a good dentist, you may not enjoy seeing them, but your very happy the have them when you need them :roll eyes:

To be candid, you have identified the reason why I have not pursued an employment law (as opposed to labor law) practice. I was very interested in pursuing discrimination cases when I started in private practice. It became apparent, however, that those who were successful in that practice had high volume practices. Some took cases knowing that they would be able to obtain a nuisance value settlement. On the flip side, employers and employers' counsel viewed almost all cases as nuisance value cases. That meant that there was little chance of settling a meritorious case for close to what it was worth. I was not interested in getting into the business of taking cases for nuisance value settlements and I was also not inclined to engage in the risk of having to fully litigate all cases that I had evaluated as meritorious. Almost all employment law cases are taken on a contingency. At that time, cases under Title VII were limited to back pay, which created a situation in which there was low reward, but significant risk. I will still take an occasional discrimination case, but only when there appears to be a glaring injustice for which there is a reasonable chance of obtaining a remedy.

Still, if the law were changed to make it easier for employers to obtain attorneys fees - and to obtain fees from counsel - the discrimination statutes would become all but worthless. The statutory scheme depends heavily on the concept of "Private attorneys general." The civil rights agencies are not sufficiently staffed to prosecute but a fraction of discrimination claims. The provision of the civil rights laws providing fees to a prevailing plaintiff creates an incentive for private counsel to enforce the policies upon which the laws are based. The chances of enforcing such policies would shrink to nearly zero if plaintiff's counsel were faced with the prospect of not only not being paid, but also being on the hook for opposing counsel's fees. All the while, defense counsel are being paid on a monthly basis. It is not a situation that would promote equal employment opportunity.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Oerets]

Whenever Tort and frivolous lawsuit are mentioned most will think back to the McDonald's Coffee and the Elderly Woman.

Until I watched the documentary call "Hot Coffee"..http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp I thought it too was a lawsuit that was silly. My mind changed right away!

http://will.illinois.edu/mediamatter...ober-9th-2011/ Fast forward to the interview. From October 2011.


The film enlighten me on how the GOP started years ago in Texas by Carl Rove to actively implanting Judges to influence the agenda of groups like the Chamber of Commerce. Through the pouring big money into local Judge elections.




Barney

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Whenever Tort and frivolous lawsuit are mentioned most will think back to the McDonald's Coffee and the Elderly Woman.

Until I watched the documentary call "Hot Coffee"..http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp I thought it too was a lawsuit that was silly. My mind changed right away!

http://will.illinois.edu/mediamatter...ober-9th-2011/ Fast forward to the interview. From October 2011.


The film enlighten me on how the GOP started years ago in Texas by Carl Rove to actively implanting Judges to influence the agenda of groups like the Chamber of Commerce. Through the pouring big money into local Judge elections.




Barney

The McDonalds hot coffee case was totally blown out of proportion by the media. I suggest everyone read the true story and it's outcome. You will learn a lot about our judicial system if you do.

Texas has tort reform laws that are far worse than loser pays. If I go into the hospital for an operation to remove your right leg, and for whatever reason, the surgeon cuts off your left leg by mistake, guess what the insurance company is on the hook for monetarily because the surgeon screwed up.

Give up?

Texas has a cap of $250,000 for tort cases.

If a doctor screws up delivering a baby, and that baby will need lifetime care, the insurance company writes a check for $250,000 and pats you on the head when they hand it to you. Problem gone, for them, as you face the prospect of millions of dollars worth of medical expenses in the future. If Medicaid still exists we get to pay for the doctors malpractice. Neat system huh, the doctor can continue to commit malpractice, the insurance company smiles all the way to the bank, and the victim gets screwed.

[Oerets]

I think it was Carl Rove who figured out that he who controls the courts controls the Government, thus the people.........



Barney

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Businesses will often have insurance to pay the fees for the defense of most claims. The individual - not so likely.

Regards,

D-Ray

This just might be the crux of the biscuit; To make it less palatable for individuals, employees, disgruntled customers, etc., to sue a business.

Business to Business lawsuits, not so much.

In otherwords, I see it as yet another attack on the individuals ability (freedom) to protect himself from abusive and unsavory business practices.

Placing the rights and desires of the business owner over that of the common citizen.

You know; The Conservative ideal.

Dave

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by wgrr

The McDonalds hot coffee case was totally blown out of proportion by the media. I suggest everyone read the true story and it's outcome. You will learn a lot about our judicial system if you do.

Texas has tort reform laws that are far worse than loser pays. If I go into the hospital for an operation to remove your right leg, and for whatever reason, the surgeon cuts off your left leg by mistake, guess what the insurance company is on the hook for monetarily because the surgeon screwed up.

Give up?

Texas has a cap of $250,000 for tort cases.

If a doctor screws up delivering a baby, and that baby will need lifetime care, the insurance company writes a check for $250,000 and pats you on the head when they hand it to you. Problem gone, for them, as you face the prospect of millions of dollars worth of medical expenses in the future. If Medicaid still exists we get to pay for the doctors malpractice. Neat system huh, the doctor can continue to commit malpractice, the insurance company smiles all the way to the bank, and the victim gets screwed.

Your statement about the $250K is misleading. The limit applies only to non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering).

[Oerets]

The three cases I know about first hand are in two different states but the results are about the same. A settlement is reached on a lump sum payout period. Lawyer comes out of that. The use some sort of scale in Indiana a death was 250K max at the time. They got less bcause they could retire!

The ones in KY were around 200K settlements because it was with the State. Healthcare is taken care of on one but must be related to event only. That is where the trouble begins. Trying to prove is was caused and not pre-existing. Then also try and get additional coverage with this hanging over you head.

The other two were left on their own for coverage with severe health issues now.




Barney

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

To be candid, you have identified the reason why I have not pursued an employment law (as opposed to labor law) practice. I was very interested in pursuing discrimination cases when I started in private practice. It became apparent, however, that those who were successful in that practice had high volume practices. Some took cases knowing that they would be able to obtain a nuisance value settlement. On the flip side, employers and employers' counsel viewed almost all cases as nuisance value cases. That meant that there was little chance of settling a meritorious case for close to what it was worth. I was not interested in getting into the business of taking cases for nuisance value settlements and I was also not inclined to engage in the risk of having to fully litigate all cases that I had evaluated as meritorious. Almost all employment law cases are taken on a contingency. At that time, cases under Title VII were limited to back pay, which created a situation in which there was low reward, but significant risk. I will still take an occasional discrimination case, but only when there appears to be a glaring injustice for which there is a reasonable chance of obtaining a remedy.

Still, if the law were changed to make it easier for employers to obtain attorneys fees - and to obtain fees from counsel - the discrimination statutes would become all but worthless. The statutory scheme depends heavily on the concept of "Private attorneys general." The civil rights agencies are not sufficiently staffed to prosecute but a fraction of discrimination claims. The provision of the civil rights laws providing fees to a prevailing plaintiff creates an incentive for private counsel to enforce the policies upon which the laws are based. The chances of enforcing such policies would shrink to nearly zero if plaintiff's counsel were faced with the prospect of not only not being paid, but also being on the hook for opposing counsel's fees. All the while, defense counsel are being paid on a monthly basis. It is not a situation that would promote equal employment opportunity.

Regards,

D-Ray

I gotta say something....

Most people, and lawyers are certainly no exception, just go wherever the big money is and don't care how they get it. The fact that you go where you think your services are most needed, where you can be of help to someone who's getting shit on......Tells me you're a good man.

Dave

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Your statement about the $250K is misleading. The limit applies only to non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering).

That does make a difference.

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Your statement about the $250K is misleading. The limit applies only to non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering).

Where most of a jury awards money resides: pain and suffering. The actual cost to deliver a baby, in a manner that causes physical problem, is a few thousand dollars. OK now we have a broken kid who could live many years and the damage was done through the negligence of the doctor. The insurance company writes a check for $255,000 and walks away.

Pain and suffering is a way for a jury to make it right. Actual damages in most cases is relatively low. Pain and suffering is a way for a jury to assure an injured party is taken care of. Plus it is a way to punish the defendant.

Med mal cases are extremely hard to win. Most lawyers will not take them. With the Texas law, I am willing to bet that no lawyer takes the case.

I know lawyers that will take med mal cases here in Arkansas. They can invest way more than $250,000 in a case in time and actual. expenses. If their pay back is less then the time they put into it why bother.