*&$% lawyersFollow

Malpractice costs are rising stratospherically (except in California, where non-economic damages are capped at 250,000) and physicians are quitting and moving in droves as in many places it is becoming not financially feasible to work anymore. (i.e. 200,000$ for OB-GYN insurance) In fact, in a city near my home-town the ER (the WHOLE emergency room)closed permanently because they could not afford to renew their insurance...even though they (the group running the ER) had *not* been sued!

I'm just curious if any of you would support a cap of non-economic damages (i.e. pain and suffering, loss of companionship, etc) in *your* state.

If not, would you support having to be transported to another *city* for care of your emergency? Or would you just sue?

--DK

Hmm. I got hit by a car 7 years ago, while crossing the street in a crosswalk. It was late, and dark, and the fella just didn't see me crossing. Technically, he's at fault anyway. I didn't sue him though, because I felt like he made an honest mistake. I think people need to lighten up a bit. I was hurt, and hurt pretty badly, but there was no malice in his actions and no desire on my part to cash in. I would be all for a cap on insurance damages relating to these types of claims. I am sick of all the twats that claim and drive my insurance up. I have to wonder about the bigger problem here though, and why people feel the need to ***** each other over at the first opportunity. Stupid people.

I can see your points and I agree that 90% of the people that sue are just greedy. However, when a doctor makes a mistake it can be extremely bad and even fatal.

I have an aunt that had surgery. The doctor left a foreign object (I think it was a sponge) inside her. It caused her severe health problems, which they ignored at first. Finally they had to go in again and take it out. This also happened to a friend of mine.

So not only did she have to have surgery twice, causing more hospital bills, but she couldn't work for an extended period of time and nearly died. She has a right to sue. And not only should those doctors pay for their negligence, but they should lose their license.

When you have people's lives in your hands you need to make sure you know what you're doing at all times. It isn't some game and you can't make mistakes. If you do, you should be prepared to pay for them.

The point is, if nothing changes you may not have a choice to go to a place with no caps. When a mistake (and whether you're a doctor or not, people *make* mistakes) can lead to millions of dollars in non-economic damages then you drive away *all* the doctors and you are going to lose your hospitals. If you're not losing your hospitals, then the cost of care will getcha. Millions of people in america can't afford health insurance, and of course you have heard about the costs of healthcare being shunted onto the workers because of rising costs. It is already happening and if nothing is done to change then it will get worse.

Caps on non-economic damages do not completely mitigate large payouts; death and economic damages can still total to large sums. Just not the crap millions of dollars for 'pain and suffering'. That would be capped. Besides, you know who gets the most of settlements, don't you? It's the lawyers, then the government. That's how trial lawyers can afford to be the biggest political advocacy group.

--DK

First of all, I'm sorry your aunt went through that, it sucks. But what would've happened had she *not* had the surgery, assuming it wasn't an elective case? And you can't blame only the doctor for leaving a sponge inside. The ancillary staff is supposed to keep track of the number of sponges that are still inside the patient as it can be impossible to find the damn things if you don't know they are still inside. If the physician is told all the sponges are accounted for, well, there you go. And besides, except for the unfortunate second surgery your aunt did eventually have everything was rectified, right? Sure they may not have figured out what happened at first; sponges don't show on xray and you don't open everyone back up for pain or everyone would get second surgeries. Finally, are you serious that the surgeon charged for the second surgery?

--DK

Of course they pass it on; like you point out it *is* a business. But, that only works to a point. Of course you have read about flocks of OB-GYNS moving out of states because costs have risen too much to pass on. There are places you have to drive hundreds of miles to have a kid.

And now some companies are refusing to insure malpractice *at all*. Several of the ER groups in Minnesota were *days* away from shutting down because you can't practice without insurance and *even though they had not been sued* their insurance was going to be taken away because it's a bad risk nowadays for companies. And even when they were insured it was for a stratospheric cost which, as you note, will be passed on. So when you hurt yourself and go to the doctor *your* bill goes up. So the only question is why *don't* you give...errr..a flying fudgesickle?

--DK

Guys. Remember. What we're talking about is a cap on the "pain and suffering" awards. So it's not like you can't sue and get paid back for your time and trouble and cost.

In the case of Angua's aunt, that would have no effect on her ability to sue for the cost of the two surgeries, the cost of lost wages during the time period she was unable to work, and any costs for other related care during the entire time period. However, what it does do is prevent folks from getting multi-million dollar awards of straight cash above and beyond what they lost.


That's the real problem with our system right now. There are way to many people who see lawsuits as the same as winning the lottery. You get hurt, and think: "Hey! I'll sue them for tons of money". Um... Realistically, you should be able to sue only for costs incurred to you directly. If you lost X days of work, you get paid for the days you lost. In the case of ongoing damage (loss of limbs, mobility, or something else permanently debilitating), then you can calculate a loss of ability to work, and factor in some legitimate amount of penalty cost for having such a major loss to yourself.


But if you fully recover, or in the case of a medical proceedure, you recover to the extent normally expected for the proceedure, then you shouldn't be able to sue for anything beyond actual costs you incurred as a direct result of a mistake made by the doctors. After the second surgery, was Angua's aunt any more negatively affected then she would have been after just the first? Was there any lingering condition that was caused solely by the fact that the sponge was left inside her? If not, then she shouldn't get any money beyond her costs. In other words, she should not have one cent more then if she hadn't had those surgeries at all.


We really do think of malpractice as a windfall for the victim. That's a huge problem. That's where we get these huge settlements. It's easy to make a jury feel sympathetic to a victim. It's easy, when that jury is only looking at that one case, for that jury to look at the amount of money the doctor/hospital has and award a huge settlement. What the jury doesn't understand is that at any given time, there are a dozen other suits going on for various reasons and each of them is approaching it with the same "we'll teach them a lesson" attitude. An attitude that is further fostered by lawyers who have a vested interest, not in justice or fairness, but in getting their clients the absolute maximum settlement possible.


Putting caps on pain and suffering awards is not unreasonable. It will not prevent people from being able to sue for damages. It does prevent the ludicrous amounts that people do sue for. Even with inflation, 250k is a pretty good chunk of change. Realize also, that if the person is permanently handicapped, they're going to also get additional "lost wages" income (amortized essentially for their entire life, so it's going to be alot). That cap is just on the "extra" money folks award. It's not money the victim "needs" due to the mistake. It's just money thrown at them to make them feel better (and largely to satisfy greed). Honestly, I've never understood pain and suffering awards at all. To my way of thinking, if my financial hardships as a result of someone else's mistake are covered, then that's all that needed.