PDA

View Full Version : Occasionally that bunch on Lincoln Boulevard makes the right call...



Okla-homey
3/15/2011, 04:24 PM
Take THAT "tort reformers." The 7th Amendment lives in Oklahoma!
Now if we could just get them to respect the XIVth we'd be in good shape.


HOUSE BILL 2128 Damages; limitations on damages for bodily injury;
modifying recovery cap on certain noneconomic damages.

AMENDMENT FAILED

YEAS: 32 RCS# 236
NAYS: 68 3/15/2011
EXC : 1 2:19 PM
C/P : 0

Breadburner
3/15/2011, 04:24 PM
I think if you look deeper into it you will see its ****ed up......

Okla-homey
3/15/2011, 04:25 PM
I think if you look deeper into it you will see its ****ed up......

How so? srsly.

Condescending Sooner
3/15/2011, 04:38 PM
Only a lawyer or someone looking for a free ride would think this is a good thing.

Okla-homey
3/15/2011, 04:45 PM
Only a lawyer or someone looking for a free ride would think this is a good thing.

People who have had a loved one hurt or killed by someone else's negligence do not share your opinion.

StoopTroup
3/15/2011, 04:48 PM
Homey....who were the players pushing for the reform? If others think that everyone who gets a day in court is an Anti-American Freeloading piece of crap...they are welcome to their opinion.

That's not what I believe. I'm glad it went down in flames.

StoopTroup
3/15/2011, 04:49 PM
People who have had a loved one hurt or killed by someone else's negligence do not share your opinion.

Damn Straight

LePetomaine
3/15/2011, 04:56 PM
Too bad that Texas could not accomplish this. My example to friends who were in favor of our med-mal Sen. Bill 4 a few years ago (caps non-economic damages at 200K) -- what happens if you go in for a vasectomy, and it goes wrong. Now, your stuff does not work. The rest of your life, your bed is silent. Does money solve this problem? No, but the possibility of liability makes professionals be careful.

Okla-homey
3/15/2011, 05:01 PM
Tulsa World story.


Lawsuit reform derailed in House
By RANDY KREHBIEL World Staff Writer
Published: 3/15/2011 2:35 PM
Last Modified: 3/15/2011 2:45 PM

OKLAHOMA CITY -- A coalition of Democrats and wary Republicans derailed lawsuit reform in the Oklahoma House Tuesday afternoon, voting down an amendment that caused leadership to withdraw the legislation entirely.

The bill set the hard cap for non-economic damages -- so-called "pain and suffering" -- at $350,000, a move lawsuit reform proponents say is necessary to prevent unwarranted judgments.

A Senate version of the bill would cap such damages to $250,000.

Democrats have generally opposed such caps, claiming they are unfair to individual plaintiffs. On Tuesday, they were joined by Republicans who argued the caps violate the U.S.Constitution's guarantee of jury trial.

By RANDY KREHBIEL World Staff Writer

StoopTroup
3/15/2011, 05:02 PM
Thanks

Mongo
3/15/2011, 05:03 PM
Any time a lawyer gets a hard on over something, i weep for society

StoopTroup
3/15/2011, 05:05 PM
Tulsa World story.

heh...


The jury box is the only place to find true democracy anymore. You can't take the jury out to lunch to influence their vote

Okla-homey
3/15/2011, 05:05 PM
Any time a lawyer gets a hard on over something, i weep for society

Well sir, lawyers John Adams, Thos. Jefferson and James Madison got a hard-on over the US Constitution they drafted. No weeping for society required there.

SouthCarolinaSooner
3/15/2011, 05:06 PM
Well sir, lawyers John Adams, Thos. Jefferson and James Madison got a hard-on over the US Constitution they drafted. No weeping for society required there.
Weeping that it is rarely followed ;)

SicEmBaylor
3/15/2011, 05:07 PM
Only a lawyer or someone looking for a free ride would think this is a good thing.

CS let me introduce you to Homey; Homey,meet CS.

Mongo
3/15/2011, 05:07 PM
If you are comparing yourself or a majority of your kind to them, I will weep even more

Sooner5030
3/15/2011, 05:09 PM
[not a JD]

Looking at the caps it appears they were too low even for a lawyer hater like myself. No need to over correct the system we have now at tilt the balance the other way. Caps would be nice though. There's too much room for an emotional/vindictive jury of "peers" to stick it to some evil person only to negatively impact all the hard working folks thru collateral damage.

StoopTroup
3/15/2011, 05:12 PM
If $350,000 is a free ride....lets compare the ride of a major lotto winner that gets 50 Million Dollars (a nice chunk of dough but not an amount much more than a Pro Football Player) and is broke in 5 years.

Putting limits on these decisions will give credence to just give the max to everyone...a Staticians dream when measuring liability.

Mongo
3/15/2011, 05:14 PM
I agree that there should be no limits, but how about disbarring any lawyer that proceeds on the behalf of a patient with a bull**** lawsuit?

Midtowner
3/15/2011, 05:41 PM
I agree that there should be no limits, but how about disbarring any lawyer that proceeds on the behalf of a patient with a bull**** lawsuit?

Sometimes you don't know your lawsuit is bull**** until you've had the opportunity to conduct discovery. You can't conduct discovery without filing a lawsuit. It's kind of a catch-22. Often, what the client thinks happened to them and what really happened are two different things.

It so happens, however, that we already have a rule like that:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm

Wishboned
3/15/2011, 06:05 PM
Oldnslo is a very happy attorney today.


I heard his opinion on tort reform last week on the radio.

StoopTroup
3/15/2011, 06:38 PM
Oldnslo is a very happy attorney today.


I heard his opinion on tort reform last week on the radio.

NPR? :D ;)

Wishboned
3/15/2011, 06:43 PM
NPR? :D ;)

Yep. No Penis Radio.


:D

Phil
3/15/2011, 07:15 PM
Woohoo! I hadn't heard this. An awful piece of legislation. Was that just the cap bill or did it include the idiotic collateral source one?

StoopTroup
3/15/2011, 07:17 PM
Yep. No Penis Radio.


:D

Heh

SunnySooner
3/15/2011, 07:23 PM
One of my BFFs is an OB/GYN, so I have some sympathy for the tort reformers. She is a dedicated and caring doctor who delivers babies and health care to women in a rural area with only one other OB anywhere close. She lives in fear of being sued and losing everything she's worked her *** off to get, and we won't even talk about her malpractice insurance. There's just so many people out there looking for the bingo, in the form of an "injured" baby. She's actually thinking of quitting, it's just not worth the risk. That would be a sad thing for all the women needing her, but I don't blame her, I wouldn't want to live like that.

Seems like there should be some middle ground, but I doubt our elected officials are smart enough to find it.

Okla-homey
3/15/2011, 07:49 PM
Woohoo! I hadn't heard this. An awful piece of legislation. Was that just the cap bill or did it include the idiotic collateral source one?

unfortunately, the repeal of the collateral source rule is still out there.

And for the non-lawyers in the crowd, the collateral source rule stands for the proposition that a person who hurts you doesn't get a discount because you had your own insurance.

In the whacky world proposed by the bill's sponsor, the Defendant gets to take a discount from the amount he owes you.

Example: You get in a car wreck and get jacked-up. Guy who caused it gets slammed at trial for doing so. Under this bill, the guy who hit you gets a "credit" for the amount of money your health insurance paid towards your medical bills.

Currently, there is no "crediting" allowed and it's a mistrial if the Defendant's lawyer mentions you have insurance in front of the jury. Just as it is of your lawyer mentions the Defendant has insurance that will pay the jury award.

AlbqSooner
3/15/2011, 07:50 PM
If you have a mid 20's loved one rendered paraplegic because of the negligence of another (physician or otherwise), the cost of future care alone for their normal life expectancy greatly exceeds $350K. This means they would be undercompensated for what they will be out of pocket and will get zip, zero, nada for having to endure that loss of ability to enjoy life, that intermittent or constant pain over the 65 plus years of their normal life expectancy, and the likelihood that their paralysis will render sexual gratification no longer attainable, among other inconveniences.

Other than that, capping damages in a personal injury suit is a good idea.

Okla-homey
3/15/2011, 07:52 PM
One of my BFFs is an OB/GYN, so I have some sympathy for the tort reformers. She is a dedicated and caring doctor who delivers babies and health care to women in a rural area with only one other OB anywhere close. She lives in fear of being sued and losing everything she's worked her *** off to get, and we won't even talk about her malpractice insurance. There's just so many people out there looking for the bingo, in the form of an "injured" baby. She's actually thinking of quitting, it's just not worth the risk. That would be a sad thing for all the women needing her, but I don't blame her, I wouldn't want to live like that.

Seems like there should be some middle ground, but I doubt our elected officials are smart enough to find it.

FWIW, no one has one med-mal case against a doctor in Oklahoma in over ten years. And the last person who won one involved a doctor who was drunk in the OR. Good doctors have nothing to fear.

StoopTroup
3/15/2011, 07:52 PM
Sexual Gratification alone is 100 Million. :D

Sooner5030
3/15/2011, 07:59 PM
FWIW, no one has one med-mal case against a doctor in Oklahoma in over ten years. And the last person who won one involved a doctor who was drunk in the OR. Good doctors have nothing to fear.

that doesn't paint the entire picture. I bet OSMA paid plenty in settlements in the last 10 years and I also bet OSMA voted to stop insuring those docs who were then forced out of the profession.

Breadburner
3/15/2011, 08:02 PM
unfortunately, the repeal of the collateral source rule is still out there.

And for the non-lawyers in the crowd, the collateral source rule stands for the proposition that a person who hurts you doesn't get a discount because you had your own insurance.

In the whacky world proposed by the bill's sponsor, the Defendant gets to take a discount from the amount he owes you.

Example: You get in a car wreck and get jacked-up. Guy who caused it gets slammed at trial for doing so. Under this bill, the guy who hit you gets a "credit" for the amount of money your health insurance paid towards your medical bills.

Currently, there is no "crediting" allowed and it's a mistrial if the Defendant's lawyer mentions you have insurance in front of the jury. Just as it is of your lawyer mentions the Defendant has insurance that will pay the jury award.

This is what I was thinking of....

Mongo
3/15/2011, 08:05 PM
What were the out of court settlement costs by mal insurance for the last ten years? What are the mal insurer's costs for defending those victories in court?

47straight
3/15/2011, 08:05 PM
that doesn't paint the entire picture. I bet OSMA paid plenty in settlements in the last 10 years and I also bet OSMA voted to stop insuring those docs who were then forced out of the profession.

But those settlement figures were set low because of the track record of med-mal suits at trial.

And if you'd like to produce a doctor who was voted out of insurance who wasn't a terrible quack, I'd love to see it.

Sooner5030
3/15/2011, 08:08 PM
And if you'd like to produce a doctor who was voted out of insurance who wasn't a terrible quack, I'd love to see it.

It was in reference to the "you have nothing to fear due to the lack of cases won" comment. The association can keep docs too long and it can let others go early depending on the association's patience to increase professional liability insurance fees on its members.

SunnySooner
3/15/2011, 08:21 PM
FWIW, no one has one med-mal case against a doctor in Oklahoma in over ten years. And the last person who won one involved a doctor who was drunk in the OR. Good doctors have nothing to fear.

That's good to know. She's out on the Left Coast, little different mentality out there. What do you think about a federal law, so we don't have all this disparity?

StoopTroup
3/15/2011, 08:24 PM
I have seen Insurance companies settle Suits against Doctors and Hospitals instead of take them to trial when the Doctor didn't do anything wrong. Then the result was the Hospital requiring the Doctor to carry a 10X higher premium do to that Hospitals negligence.

When you run out of Hospitals to work with you have to drop being a Surgeon or find a group of Doctors to find enough money to invest in their own Surgical Facilities.

Any of you who have had a surgery in the last 5 years at the very least know you've seldomly been told that you were going to have your surgery at the Hospital. It's cut you and get you Home so they can blame any infection on you

Sooner5030
3/15/2011, 08:50 PM
[not a jd or md]

Also, I find it hard to believe that anyone…..in any profession will not make an honest mistake in a career that spans 40-50 years. I just don’t want to see people lose everything they have over one mistake…especially negligence…when their continued practice would benefit others. I’m not sure when the majority of our society/herd/mob assumed that punitive damages are a right or even a good thing. Confiscated wealth is the worst used capital and we are stockpiling faster than students can flunk the MCAT and opt for the LSAT.;)

Pants
3/15/2011, 09:10 PM
FWIW, no one has one med-mal case against a doctor in Oklahoma in over ten years. And the last person who won one involved a doctor who was drunk in the OR. Good doctors have nothing to fear.

That's a bunch of crap. There are plenty of good docs out there who get sued all the time over stupid stuff just because someone gets angry over a bad outcome. Then you end up having to give a settlement to said plaintiff just because it's cheaper to give someone the money and not fight it. Happens all the time. Sure there are times when true malpractice occurs but I've seen it all too often when someone does a very appropriate/reasonable thing and they may get sued for it. Just saying.

Pants
3/15/2011, 09:22 PM
[not a jd or md]

Also, I find it hard to believe that anyone…..in any profession will not make an honest mistake in a career that spans 40-50 years. I just don’t want to see people lose everything they have over one mistake…especially negligence…when their continued practice would benefit others. I’m not sure when the majority of our society/herd/mob assumed that punitive damages are a right or even a good thing. Confiscated wealth is the worst used capital and we are stockpiling faster than students can flunk the MCAT and opt for the LSAT.;)

This is certainly a big fear about those of us who have dedicated our lives to healing. Everyone gets sued at some point in their careers. I have worked my *** off, have built up hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, gotten divorced, and essentially gave up my 20's and early 30's to do this job. It sucks sometimes but I love what I do. Having said that, you're damn right I fear the one time an honest mistake is made that it could screw it all up.

olevetonahill
3/15/2011, 09:26 PM
Ima thinkin the folks that Hate on the Lawyers are Much like the folks what Hate on Guns

Bitch about em to the high heavens Till Ya need one :rolleyes:

Pants
3/15/2011, 09:27 PM
Having said that, I know that if I'm a good physician/surgeon, that the likelihood of litigation is low, but the threat is ALWAYS there. There are so many people out there looking for their lotto ticket.

StoopTroup
3/15/2011, 09:28 PM
Ima thinkin the folks that Hate on the Lawyers are Much like the folks what Hate on Guns

Bitch about em to the high heavens Till Ya need one :rolleyes:

bingo

GKeeper316
3/15/2011, 09:33 PM
One of my BFFs is an OB/GYN, so I have some sympathy for the tort reformers. She is a dedicated and caring doctor who delivers babies and health care to women in a rural area with only one other OB anywhere close. She lives in fear of being sued and losing everything she's worked her *** off to get, and we won't even talk about her malpractice insurance. There's just so many people out there looking for the bingo, in the form of an "injured" baby. She's actually thinking of quitting, it's just not worth the risk. That would be a sad thing for all the women needing her, but I don't blame her, I wouldn't want to live like that.

Seems like there should be some middle ground, but I doubt our elected officials are smart enough to find it.

everybody else in the world lives with the fear of getting their asses sued when they **** up... why should we make doctors and insurance companies exempt from said fear?

its that same fear that forces them to work as flawlessly as possible.

when my father was still practicing, an insurance company denied coverage to a young girl with a tumor growing on her thyroid. the tumor subsequently grew to the point that her entire thyroid gland stopped functioning and had to be removed...

call me stupid, but i'd say the effects thats going to have on the rest of this girl's life (she was only 12 when diagnosed) is worth well more than 350,000 dollars. dad got her several million, and only took 40k on top of the case's expenses for his fee.

the proponents of tort reform are insurance companies trying to increase their already outrageous profit margins. do you really believe for a second that if this legislation had passed, your rates would go down?

Sooner5030
3/15/2011, 09:34 PM
Ima thinkin the folks that Hate on the Lawyers are Much like the folks what Hate on Guns

Bitch about em to the high heavens Till Ya need one

it's not really that simple......I am pro-defense for both criminal and civil law.

StoopTroup
3/15/2011, 09:40 PM
This is certainly a big fear about those of us who have dedicated our lives to healing. Everyone gets sued at some point in their careers. I have worked my *** off, have built up hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, gotten divorced, and essentially gave up my 20's and early 30's to do this job. It sucks sometimes but I love what I do. Having said that, you're damn right I fear the one time an honest mistake is made that it could screw it all up.

As well you should be. You have people's lives in your hands. I'm surprised there isn't any mandatory drug testing in your Profession or things that would not only protect a patiet from a drunk or high Doctor prior to his oops. I'm not sure I'd want a guy cutting me for instance if I knew his was going through a divorce becaue his Wife didn't think you worked hard enough to accomodate her lifestyle....or take your Kids away from you.

Thing is....if you make such a bad call and do hurt a patient....it's why you have Med Mal. If you can't fix them and you screwed them up....you may have to start over. You wouldn't be the first guy it ever happened to. You could always continue to help after that...you just might have to make changes as to how you practice after that. Maybe a guy who loses 1 or 2 or say 100 patients shouldn't do surgery so he can make his alimony payments or keep the BMW in the drive and the Boat at the Lake. Maybe he needs to quit worrying about money and go back to just helping people.

Our lives can get pretty out of sync. Decisions we make have consequences.

Veritas
3/15/2011, 09:44 PM
I think we place way too much value on human life. Some people are really worth having around, but most...meh.

olevetonahill
3/15/2011, 09:50 PM
I think we place way too much value on human life. Some people are really worth having around, but most...meh.

Oh if we could only Apply yer "Retard remover" to People
What a wonderful world :D

A Sooner in Texas
3/15/2011, 09:57 PM
As well you should be. You have people's lives in your hands. I'm surprised there isn't any mandatory drug testing in your Profession or things that would not only protect a patiet from a drunk or high Doctor prior to his oops. I'm not sure I'd want a guy cutting me for instance if I knew his was going through a divorce becaue his Wife didn't think you worked hard enough to accomodate her lifestyle....or take your Kids away from you.

Thing is....if you make such a bad call and do hurt a patient....it's why you have Med Mal. If you can't fix them and you screwed them up....you may have to start over. You wouldn't be the first guy it ever happened to. You could always continue to help after that...you just might have to make changes as to how you practice after that. Maybe a guy who loses 1 or 2 or say 100 patients shouldn't do surgery so he can make his alimony payments or keep the BMW in the drive and the Boat at the Lake. Maybe he needs to quit worrying about money and go back to just helping people.

Our lives can get pretty out ofTsync. Decisions we make have consequences.

You should be able to check the latest disciplinary actions against doctors by whatever the state licensing board in OK is called. I get e-mail alerts from the Texas Med Board (for potential stories about local docs) and it can be quite eye-opening.

Pants
3/15/2011, 10:06 PM
As well you should be. You have people's lives in your hands. I'm surprised there isn't any mandatory drug testing in your Profession or things that would not only protect a patiet from a drunk or high Doctor prior to his oops. I'm not sure I'd want a guy cutting me for instance if I knew his was going through a divorce becaue his Wife didn't think you worked hard enough to accomodate her lifestyle....or take your Kids away from you.

Thing is....if you make such a bad call and do hurt a patient....it's why you have Med Mal. If you can't fix them and you screwed them up....you may have to start over. You wouldn't be the first guy it ever happened to. You could always continue to help after that...you just might have to make changes as to how you practice after that. Maybe a guy who loses 1 or 2 or say 100 patients shouldn't do surgery so he can make his alimony payments or keep the BMW in the drive and the Boat at the Lake. Maybe he needs to quit worrying about money and go back to just helping people.

Our lives can get pretty out of sync. Decisions we make have consequences.

No $hit. That's common sense. Same goes for EVERY profession. I'm not here to argue that our profession has to police itself better. We should just as lawyers should. Most professions could use to monitor themselves better.

Either way, it's easy for someone outside of either profession to say simply, "well, just dont **** up, and you'll be peachy." Professionals are held at a higher standard, and that's ok. I, and I'm sure EVERY physician accepts that. I think things should be more balanced on both sides, FWIW. Both lawyers and physicians think they're helping people....just from different perspectives, and we all work our asses off to do so.

StoopTroup
3/15/2011, 10:10 PM
No $hit. That's common sense. Same goes for EVERY profession. I'm not here to argue that our profession has to police itself better. We should just as lawyers should. Most professions could use to monitor themselves better.

Either way, it's easy for someone outside of either profession to say simply, "well, just dont **** up, and you'll be peachy." Professionals are held at a higher standard, and that's ok. I, and I'm sure EVERY physician accepts that. I think things should be more balanced on both sides, FWIW. Both lawyers and physicians think they're helping people....just from different perspectives, and we all work our asses off to do so.

No problem. I am concerned that so many ticking timebombs out there go unchecked due to the Profession feeling like everyone is coming down on them because they make good to really good money.

Good Docs deserve to get paid just like Good lawyers.

Insurance Companies have really changed both Professions so they can control you both.

olevetonahill
3/15/2011, 10:13 PM
it's not really that simple......I am pro-defense for both criminal and civil law.

Yea Its Pretty much that ****in SIMPLE
Pizz and Moan, Bitch and Hate On Lawyers

If ya ever Need one you gonna be looking for the best you can afford :rolleyes:

Pants
3/15/2011, 10:16 PM
There's no doubt that insurance companies have f'd up a lot.

Sooner5030
3/16/2011, 05:48 AM
Pizz and Moan, Bitch and Hate On Lawyers

Vet......it's a message board and the post is about lawsuits. Stop Pizzing, moaning, bitching and hating on posters!:D

Okla-homey
3/16/2011, 06:21 AM
That's a bunch of crap. There are plenty of good docs out there who get sued all the time over stupid stuff just because someone gets angry over a bad outcome. Then you end up having to give a settlement to said plaintiff just because it's cheaper to give someone the money and not fight it. Happens all the time. Sure there are times when true malpractice occurs but I've seen it all too often when someone does a very appropriate/reasonable thing and they may get sued for it. Just saying.

I can only speak for Oklahoma and my experience. Good doctors will occasionally get sued. Most often because med mal plaintiffs usually sue everyone who touched them during the subject admission to the hospital. The hospital itself, the nurses, the admitting and/or attending physician, the radiologist, the OR gas-passer, sometimes even the pathologist in the lab.

But no one ends up paying out a dime unless the plaintiff shows he can make the required showing to a jury that any or all of them breached the standard of care. And just so you know, making a few mistakes can still be considered within the standard of care. We're talking screw-ups of epic proportions here.

And this argument that doctors are leaving Oklahoma because the legsilature has'nt denied Oklahomans their VII Amendment right to sue people who hurt them is preposterous. Its not happening. In fact, the number of physicians actively practicing in Oklahoma continues to increase every year.

Finally, at least one med mal insurance carrier in Oklahoma writes policies that give the insured doc the option denying the carrier permission to pay anything to settle and therefore guarenteeing the plaintiff will have to go to trial and win to get a dime.

Is that all you got? Or is there more hyperbolic and/or non-factual ancedotal stuff you would like to share?

jk the sooner fan
3/16/2011, 08:39 AM
i seriously doubt Thomas Jefferson and/or John Adams would approve of the current day exorbitant lawsuit payouts and ambulance chasing lawyers

i'm shocked...shocked at the fact that a lawyer would be against tort reform

how does the old saying go? "follow the money"

i have no qualms with people being injured being made whole but to argue that the current system is fair or even reasonable ...is an absolute joke

Condescending Sooner
3/16/2011, 08:49 AM
Not one person in this thread has mentioned "non-economic" damages. If someone is killed or maimed, it would be pretty damn easy to sue for future earnings and such. You all act like the cap is the same regardless.

MonkeyMouth
3/16/2011, 10:45 AM
Any of you who have had a surgery in the last 5 years at the very least know you've seldomly been told that you were going to have your surgery at the Hospital. It's cut you and get you Home so they can blame any infection on you


Are you saying this is the doctors fault for this practice? Because if you are, that's typically not the case. It boils down to what insurance will allow and how much patients are willing to pay out of pocket what the insurance doesn't/wont cover.

MonkeyMouth
3/16/2011, 10:50 AM
Ima thinkin the folks that Hate on the Lawyers are Much like the folks what Hate on Guns

Bitch about em to the high heavens Till Ya need one :rolleyes:

The same can be said about those bitchin on the medical profession.

You don't want to have pay the price for their services, but dammit they better be there when your heart stops beating.

olevetonahill
3/16/2011, 10:56 AM
The same can be said about those bitchin on the medical profession.

You don't want to have pay the price for their services, but dammit they better be there when your heart stops beating.

No doubt
Its just Human nature to Bitch about some one else :D

MonkeyMouth
3/16/2011, 11:00 AM
But no one ends up paying out a dime unless the plaintiff shows he can make the required showing to a jury that any or all of them breached the standard of care.

From my understanding it takes lawyers and investigative work to determine if any breech of care occured. Someone has to pay for that.

Whether a it goes to trial or not, a lawsuit costs money.

soonerhubs
3/16/2011, 11:05 AM
In Utah, many OB-GYN doctors require signed agreements for mediation before they'll even let the patients in the door. Is that illegal in Oklahoma?

olevetonahill
3/16/2011, 11:07 AM
In Utah, many OB-GYN doctors require signed agreements for mediation before they'll even let the patients in the door. Is that illegal in Oklahoma?

That sounds like a Plan
I was wondering the same thing.Why not do it and make sure that its fair to all parties

sooneron
3/16/2011, 11:19 AM
Ima start pizzin and moanin 'bout vet! :D

Midtowner
3/16/2011, 12:17 PM
i'm shocked...shocked at the fact that a lawyer would be against tort reform

I don't do much tort law. I just happen to work in and around that system, mostly in the family courts, so I know a thing or two about how it works, what's fair, etc.

Medical malpractice is something I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. And no lawyer is going to go near one of those cases unless he thinks it sounds at least somewhat meritorious. The mere cost of filing it and getting it properly at issue means that lawyers won't be filing too many frivolous proceedings.

I do feel for OB/GYNs though. But they have to understand that for an attorney to be able to figure out whether there is a case, the way the system is set up now, they have to either sue or face potential malpractice themselves.

Bourbon St Sooner
3/16/2011, 12:32 PM
That sounds like a Plan
I was wondering the same thing.Why not do it and make sure that its fair to all parties


Because the attorneys like their jackpot game and pay politicians handsomely to protect it. Kind of like how Wall Street runs their casino and pays the politicians to protect it.

Veritas
3/16/2011, 12:34 PM
In Utah, many OB-GYN doctors require signed agreements for mediation before they'll even let the patients in the door. Is that illegal in Oklahoma?
Shouldn't be. Malpractice suits have wrecked that ob/gyns.

Midtowner
3/16/2011, 12:35 PM
So the Speaker himself was the recipient of (adjusted for inflation) an award well in excess of the hard caps he would propose.

http://www.reddirtreport.com/Story.aspx/17991

olevetonahill
3/16/2011, 01:08 PM
Ima start pizzin and moanin 'bout vet! :D

Its a LONG line my friend :D

jk the sooner fan
3/16/2011, 01:11 PM
I don't do much tort law. I just happen to work in and around that system, mostly in the family courts, so I know a thing or two about how it works, what's fair, etc.

Medical malpractice is something I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. And no lawyer is going to go near one of those cases unless he thinks it sounds at least somewhat meritorious. The mere cost of filing it and getting it properly at issue means that lawyers won't be filing too many frivolous proceedings.

I do feel for OB/GYNs though. But they have to understand that for an attorney to be able to figure out whether there is a case, the way the system is set up now, they have to either sue or face potential malpractice themselves.

there are other kinds of torts besides medmal lawsuits....but of course you know that, being a lawyer and all

Midtowner
3/16/2011, 01:22 PM
there are other kinds of torts besides medmal lawsuits....but of course you know that, being a lawyer and all

Sure they are, but almost all of the lobbying has centered around medmal. In fact, a prior version of this bill had these hard caps only being applicable to medmal and was later amended to include all torts.

For products liability, that'd be absolutely absurd. Is $350K enough to compensate a mother for the loss of her child in a tire tread separation case where the plaintiff can prove the tire company knew of the defect and chose to kill and maim people rather than spending a buck more a tire to fix it?

For those sorts of things, by placing a hard cap on non-economic damages, you give corporations a guiding number as to how many people they can afford to kill with shoddier products and still end up with a healthier profit.

Remember the Ford Pinto?

OUDoc
3/16/2011, 01:31 PM
Having said that, I know that if I'm a good physician/surgeon, that the likelihood of litigation is low, but the threat is ALWAYS there. There are so many people out there looking for their lotto ticket.

The risk of a physician getting sued 50 years ago: 1 in 5 lifetime

The risk of a physician getting sued now: 1 in 5 per year

(as I understand, in Oklahoma it's better at 1 in 7 per year)

The lawyers are going to tell me it's on us? Our training is worse now?
Bull****.

StoopTroup
3/16/2011, 01:39 PM
The risk of a physician getting sued 50 years ago: 1 in 5 lifetime

The risk of a physician getting sued now: 1 in 5 per year

(as I understand, in Oklahoma it's better at 1 in 7 per year)

The lawyers are going to tell me it's on us? Our training is worse now?
Bull****.

I dare say the standards are to low for barristers or that they should limit their number per square inch? :D ;)

Mongo
3/16/2011, 01:40 PM
Sometimes you don't know your lawsuit is bull**** until you've had the opportunity to conduct discovery. You can't conduct discovery without filing a lawsuit. It's kind of a catch-22. Often, what the client thinks happened to them and what really happened are two different things.

It so happens, however, that we already have a rule like that:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm

So, a person goes to law school to learn a certain area of the law, takes on a client, charges out the wahzoo, but isnt smart enough to know if his client's case is bull****?

It must be fun to gamble with other people's money

Midtowner
3/16/2011, 01:51 PM
Oh bull****. Where are you getting those numbers?


http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2010/december/121510katz_malpractice_study.html

"The high levels of malpractice concern, even among physicians in relatively low-risk environments, is striking," Katz said. "One possible explanation is that most physicians do not have the information to accurately access their actual risk of being sued."

"Rates in California
The percentage of premium dollars insurers spend on claims is known as the loss ratio (Robertson, Sacramento Business Journal, 2/17).
On average, California malpractice insurers spend nearly 23% of premiums on claims payments and other losses. However, some insurers spend as little as 2% of premiums to pay out claims, according to the insurance department.
Jones said, "Low loss ratios are one indication that premiums may be too high" (Mohajer, AP/San Jose Mercury News, 2/17).
Based on rate data from 2009, the department has issued letters to six of the top 15 medical malpractice insurers in California about their rates (Sacramento Business Journal, 2/17).
For additional coverage on Jones' effort to adjust medical malpractice rates, see today's Capitol Desk post.


Read more: http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2011/2/18/insurance-commissioner-probing-doctors-rates-for-medical-malpractice.aspx#ixzz1GmzegQjz"


Medical malpractice premiums are nearly the lowest they have been in 30 years.
Medical malpractice claims are down 45 percent since 2000.
Medical malpractice insurer profits are higher than the rest of the property casualty industry, which has been very profitable over the last five years.
In states that have substantially limited consumers’ ability to go to court for medical malpractice, the insurance premiums for doctors are basically the same as in other states.

http://savvyconsumer.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/new-study-finds-medical-malpractice-insurance-premiums-have-minimal-effect-on-health-care-costs/

jk the sooner fan
3/16/2011, 01:55 PM
so you're trying to convince us that you're practicing tort law for the humanity of it all

right......lmao

Midtowner
3/16/2011, 01:55 PM
So, a person goes to law school to learn a certain area of the law, takes on a client, charges out the wahzoo, but isnt smart enough to know if his client's case is bull****?

It must be fun to gamble with other people's money

Well no, when a lay person comes in to tell you their tale of woe, be it about environmental pollution, home flooding, tire tread separation, medical malpractice, etc., most attorneys simply aren't qualified to be able to figure out independently whether the client, who thinks they are aggrieved, really has a legal claimed.

Being hurt and having someone be liable for you being hurt are two very different things, and often, the answer requires highly specialized knowledge and access to information not available to the public.

To get at that information, you have to hire experts, conduct discovery, depositions, etc. Some cases, like environmental pollution cases cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions to get to a jury verdict.

And the thing is that in most tort cases, the plaintiff's lawyers are working for contingency fees. That means that if they don't get anything out of the case for the client, they aren't getting paid either.

So tell me, if you had to take a job which had a low percentage chance of paying, but you had to put thousands of dollars of your own money into the job and many hours of work, would you do it?

Probably not--unless the payout, if there was one, made the case worth taking.

Midtowner
3/16/2011, 01:57 PM
so you're trying to convince us that you're practicing tort law for the humanity of it all

right......lmao

No, I go to work to make money. What do you go to work to do?

I do enjoy helping people though. And as I said, I do a smattering of personal injury cases, but it's maybe 10% of my caseload.

olevetonahill
3/16/2011, 01:58 PM
Heres a question Id like an answer to
How much is the average Malpractice Insurance premium for a Doctor Versus for an Attorney, What do they call it ? Errors and Omissions?
Yer average attorney spends what 7 years total in school then goes out and can hang his own Shingle

While Doctors spend an average of at least 10 years in training .

jk the sooner fan
3/16/2011, 02:01 PM
No, I go to work to make money. What do you go to work to do?

I do enjoy helping people though as long as i'm making money

thats fine, lets just make sure we call a spade a spade and get the true motivation out on the table

Mongo
3/16/2011, 02:06 PM
Well no, when a lay person comes in to tell you their tale of woe, be it about environmental pollution, home flooding, tire tread separation, medical malpractice, etc., most attorneys simply aren't qualified to be able to figure out independently whether the client, who thinks they are aggrieved, really has a legal claimed.

Being hurt and having someone be liable for you being hurt are two very different things, and often, the answer requires highly specialized knowledge and access to information not available to the public.

To get at that information, you have to hire experts, conduct discovery, depositions, etc. Some cases, like environmental pollution cases cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions to get to a jury verdict.

And the thing is that in most tort cases, the plaintiff's lawyers are working for contingency fees. That means that if they don't get anything out of the case for the client, they aren't getting paid either.

So tell me, if you had to take a job which had a low percentage chance of paying, but you had to put thousands of dollars of your own money into the job and many hours of work, would you do it?

Probably not--unless the payout, if there was one, made the case worth taking.

YOU have to take a job like that? Or do you see a possible payout, front the money for the gamble?

Midtowner
3/16/2011, 02:07 PM
thats fine, lets just make sure we call a spade a spade and get the true motivation out on the table

Money ain't the only thing.

And you'd believe me on this one if you saw my outstanding A/R.

Midtowner
3/16/2011, 02:11 PM
YOU have to take a job like that? Or do you see a possible payout, front the money for the gamble?

You don't have to, but in order to fully investigate what really might be a good case, you have to sue absolutely everyone in sight, conduct discovery, then dismiss the parties who aren't responsible.

If I file and don't include a party who I might later find is culpable, the statute of limitations runs, and I later find out that he's the guy who was responsible, I've just committed actionable malpractice myself. That probably explains why a lot of docs get sued for claims they think are groundless. The law really doesn't give lawyers an option except to sue everyone in sight and then sort it out--and I agree, that's unfortunate.

The only alternative would be something that no Republican tort reformer would be in favor of--tolling the statute of limitations for all potential parties once a cause of action has been filed, and I agree that'd be much worse than what we have. Imagine being brought into a lawsuit 6-7 years after the fact where you were never on notice that you could be a potential party.

Mongo
3/16/2011, 02:13 PM
I am sure the majority of attornies are as noble as you and Okla "John Adams" Homey

MamaMia
3/16/2011, 02:15 PM
How much of a cut do attorneys usually get on these personal injury cases, or is there a set fee per hour?

Midtowner
3/16/2011, 02:16 PM
I am sure the majority of attornies are as noble as you and Okla "John Adams" Homey

Most are. There are a handful who I don't have much use for, but the vast majority of legal practitioners are good people. As far as being noble, I'd say that we're at least as noble as any other profession out there.

StoopTroup
3/16/2011, 02:16 PM
I'm just glad I don't have to have the wrinkles in my penis botoxed. That stuff scares me.

Midtowner
3/16/2011, 02:17 PM
....

olevetonahill
3/16/2011, 02:20 PM
Heres a question Id like an answer to
How much is the average Malpractice Insurance premium for a Doctor Versus for an Attorney, What do they call it ? Errors and Omissions?
Yer average attorney spends what 7 years total in school then goes out and can hang his own Shingle

While Doctors spend an average of at least 10 years in training .

Asked and NOT answered counselor

StoopTroup
3/16/2011, 02:21 PM
How much of a cut do attorneys usually get on these personal injury cases, or is there a set fee per hour?

I heard one the other day that started around 20% but if you end up having a court case it can change and go higher unless you wish to pay by hour up front? If you can't and the atty wishes to risk his time...it can go up to 40%.

I don't know if that's a set limit or just how things go....

Also...I've seen some be pro bono and others be 10% but it's up to your Attorney from what little I know about it. Maybe there are some limits now?

Maybe one of our Attys can straighten me out too.

OUDoc
3/16/2011, 02:22 PM
Oh bull****. Where are you getting those numbers?


Directly from the chief legal counsel for PLICO (Ed Kelsey, I think?). Apparently they took his webinar offline or I'd post the link. It was from 4-5 years ago and required attendance/viewing for continued malpractice coverage.
Bull****, indeed.

MamaMia
3/16/2011, 02:26 PM
I heard one the other day that started around 20% but if you end up having a court case it can change and go higher unless you wish to pay by hour up front? If you can't and the atty wishes to risk his time...it can go up to 40%.

I don't know if that's a set limit or just who things go....

Also...I've seen some be pro bono and others be 10% but it's up to your Attorney from what little I know about it. Maybe there are some limits now?

Maybe one of our Attys can straighten me out too.So, if it goes to court and the judgement is say...a million dollars, the attorney gets 400 thousand? So, after you weigh in the medical expenses, (past, present and future), the court costs and filing fees that have to be payed, the plantiff may end up with about the same amount, or less than the attorney gets? :confused:

olevetonahill
3/16/2011, 02:32 PM
So, if it goes to court and the judgement is say...a million dollars, the attorney gets 400 thousand? So, after you weigh in the medical expenses, (past, present and future), the court costs and filing fees that have to be payed, the plantiff may end up with about the same amount, or less than the attorney gets? :confused:

I think if its a 40Percenter the attorney pays all the costs out of his cut

Viking Kitten
3/16/2011, 02:35 PM
Speaking of tort reform, here (http://www.reddirtreport.com/Story.aspx/17991) is a little gem of a story just now making the rounds. It seems Speaker of the House Kris Steel was himself the beneficiary of hefty non-economic damages awarded to him during a lawsuit.

The way I heard the story is that the injuries he sustained that led to this case are the cause of his bad leg. If you follow Capitol news at all, you know that Rep. Randy Terrill threatened to "break his other leg" this week and was subsequently publicly reprimanded for it. The party never stops at 23rd and Lincoln.

Midtowner
3/16/2011, 02:36 PM
Directly from the chief legal counsel for PLICO (Ed Kelsey, I think?). Apparently they took his webinar offline or I'd post the link. It was from 4-5 years ago and required attendance/viewing for continued malpractice coverage.
Bull****, indeed.

Ah.. well there's a source for unbiased information--the CEO of the malpractice company.

OUDoc
3/16/2011, 02:38 PM
Ah.. well there's a source for unbiased information--the CEO of the malpractice company.

CEO? He's one of you. He probably chubs up when he hears an ambulance too.
And your unbiased blanket denials are backed by.....what?

Midtowner
3/16/2011, 02:38 PM
Asked and NOT answered counselor

My malpractice premiums are pretty low. I honestly don't even know what they are, but I doubt it's more than a couple thousand a year. Then again, I do mainly family law, so the incidence of malpractice (which is actually sued for) is also almost unheard of.

If I wanted to get insurance to practice securities law, the last time our firm checked on this, in the 90s, it was around $50K/year. It's probably a lot higher now.

Midtowner
3/16/2011, 02:40 PM
CEO? He's one of you. He probably chubs up when he hears an ambulance too.
And your unbiased blanket denials are backed by.....what?

I just posted three links, two to studies, one backed by the California Insurance Commissioner and another backed by the University of Iowa.

The other was from a consumer blog. Disregard it as biased if you want to, but the others are pretty salient.

Have you been sued 7 times this year?

5?

I've represented several doctors, I definitely can't validate these stats, at least anecdotally.

Here's another decent source.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Malpracticeanalysis_final.pdf

Midtowner
3/16/2011, 02:44 PM
CEO? He's one of you.

Other than the diploma on his wall, I have nothing in common with him.

OUDoc
3/16/2011, 03:15 PM
All I can tell you is what he told us. Unfortunately, I can't find the links anymore.

All I know is I pay too much in malpractice and I don't even do invasive procedures (despite being a licensed MD) because the cost would go up over $5,000/year.
Why, in our society, do we think when someone dies or is injured, someone should get paid?
Lawyers did that.
People die no matter what I do, people die no matter what you do. People get hurt no matter what. Someone who works minimum wage isn't going to make $10 million in their lifetime but an attorney can get them that in one judgment. It's a major problem that the entire world seems to see EXCEPT for lawyers and politicians (who are usually lawyers). Do you find it ironic that politicians have to fight so hard against tort reform when the deck is clearly loaded against the rest of society? Your profession controls a majority of the legislation, yet tort reform keeps coming back. Ever think there is a reason for this?

Sooner5030
3/16/2011, 03:20 PM
Most agree that tort reform, whether you're a fan or not, will decrease the total number of cases. Regardless of type of practice this will result in lower overall revenues that could be divided by all the practicing lawyers.

Always take the advice of an expert with a bit a skepticism......at least that they are as tainted by self preservation as the rest of us.

Howzit
3/16/2011, 03:26 PM
I'm just glad I don't have to have the wrinkles in my penis botoxed. That stuff scares me.

Mine actually turned out rather nicely, if I do say so myself.

Midtowner
3/16/2011, 04:35 PM
All I can tell you is what he told us. Unfortunately, I can't find the links anymore.

All I know is I pay too much in malpractice and I don't even do invasive procedures (despite being a licensed MD) because the cost would go up over $5,000/year.
Why, in our society, do we think when someone dies or is injured, someone should get paid?
Lawyers did that.
People die no matter what I do, people die no matter what you do. People get hurt no matter what. Someone who works minimum wage isn't going to make $10 million in their lifetime but an attorney can get them that in one judgment. It's a major problem that the entire world seems to see EXCEPT for lawyers and politicians (who are usually lawyers). Do you find it ironic that politicians have to fight so hard against tort reform when the deck is clearly loaded against the rest of society? Your profession controls a majority of the legislation, yet tort reform keeps coming back. Ever think there is a reason for this?

Well, you fundamentally misstate the premise.

If a doctor (or anyone else for that matter), through his professional negligence, maims or kills someone, why should he be exempt from the same jury of his peers the rest of us have to face when we run someone down with our cars?

You operate in a high risk/high reward field. I'm assuming your income reflects that.

Viking Kitten
3/16/2011, 04:57 PM
It's a major problem that the entire world seems to see EXCEPT for lawyers and politicians (who are usually lawyers).

Less than 20 percent of the Oklahoma Legislature is comprised of lawyers. Just so everyone is clear on that point.

soonerhubs
3/16/2011, 05:07 PM
Well, you fundamentally misstate the premise.

If a doctor (or anyone else for that matter), through his professional negligence, maims or kills someone, why should he be exempt from the same jury of his peers the rest of us have to face when we run someone down with our cars?

You operate in a high risk/high reward field. I'm assuming your income reflects that.

That's a horrible metaphor. The Doctors' goals are to save lives and reduce the likelihood of death.

Hitting someone with a car is usually the product of someone's goal to be effing stupid as he/she texts or drinks while driving.

StoopTroup
3/16/2011, 05:13 PM
That's a horrible metaphor. The Doctors' goals are to save lives and reduce the likelihood of death.

Hitting someone with a car is usually the product of someone's goal to be effing stupid as he/she texts or drinks while driving.

Sure it is Dr Menglela....:D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/20/Josef-mengele.jpg/200px-Josef-mengele.jpg

soonerhubs
3/16/2011, 05:15 PM
Sure it is Dr Menglela....:D

http://www.whale.to/b/Mengele78.jpg

I had to look that up. :O

MamaMia
3/16/2011, 05:18 PM
I think if its a 40Percenter the attorney pays all the costs out of his cut

No. That comes off the top.

StoopTroup
3/16/2011, 05:18 PM
I had to look that up. :O

He was better with Train wrecks. :D

Veritas
3/16/2011, 05:22 PM
So I'm going to call bull**** with the whole "hate on lawyers until you need one" meme because it pretends as if all practices of law are equal.

They're not, just as all practices of medicine are not equal. There are brain surgeons, and then there are plastic surgeons. There are corporate attorneys like the one I employ, and then there are personal injury lawyers.

Basically, I got nothing against attorneys as a whole. It's the ambulance chasing daytime advertising mass tort loving pieces of crap that I hate.

StoopTroup
3/16/2011, 05:25 PM
Pricks are universal

Midtowner
3/16/2011, 06:06 PM
That's a horrible metaphor. The Doctors' goals are to save lives and reduce the likelihood of death.

Oh cool.. then I guess none of 'em would care if we paid them a reasonable salary of say $40K a year?

No one would have a problem with that, right?

Medical docs tend to be just as in it for the cash as they are for the helping people stuff.

SoonerHoops
3/16/2011, 06:57 PM
Just goes to show that what we really need is insurance reform. Everyone loves to hate on trial lawyers for being greedy, but their greed isn't on the same planet as insurance execs.


Passing caps isn't going to cause premiums to decrease or businesses to come to Oklahoma. It's not like insurance companies are going to pass those savings down to their insureds. No, they're going to buy a house on Fiji at the expense of those innocent citizens who are permanently disabled or killed due to negligence of another

SoonerHoops
3/16/2011, 07:00 PM
That's a bunch of crap. There are plenty of good docs out there who get sued all the time over stupid stuff just because someone gets angry over a bad outcome. Then you end up having to give a settlement to said plaintiff just because it's cheaper to give someone the money and not fight it. Happens all the time. Sure there are times when true malpractice occurs but I've seen it all too often when someone does a very appropriate/reasonable thing and they may get sued for it. Just saying.


Doesn't happen that much, and even more rare that the case gets settled because it's cheaper to not fight it. By law, lawyers are required to have an expert review the case and give a favorable opinion before filing the lawsuit. Do you know how much an expert requires for every hour of his time? And someone mentioned it earlier, trial lawyers don't get paid by the hour. They fund their cases entirely out of their own pockets until recovery. If trial lawyers are all so greedy, then I really doubt they're going to shell out 10-20 thousand dollars just to get a case filed, plus double or triple that to litigate the case.

SoonerHoops
3/16/2011, 07:06 PM
I also find it interesting that no one has really discussed that 27 House Republicans changed their vote on this bill placing damage caps on non-economic damages in a span of less than a day. That's right, this bill failed miserably yesterday, and passed today with the exact same language. Pretty astonishing.


How does that happen? Probably because Republican leadership, insurance companies and Chesapeake told the House members if they don't change their vote, they aren't getting their reelection campaign funded.

C&CDean
3/16/2011, 07:16 PM
You know what I love about this thread? Lawyers and doctors still need to buy stamps to mail their bull**** correspondence back and forth. That's about the only thing though.

sooner_born_1960
3/16/2011, 07:21 PM
So, now the cap passed?

Maybe, Occasionally that bunch on Lincoln Boulevard makes the right call...

Phil
3/16/2011, 07:48 PM
I need to change my registration to independent.

The hard cap will get overturned as unconstitutional, anyway.

It's that collateral source idiocy that really chaps me more than the cap.

soonerhubs
3/16/2011, 08:57 PM
Oh cool.. then I guess none of 'em would care if we paid them a reasonable salary of say $40K a year?

No one would have a problem with that, right?

Medical docs tend to be just as in it for the cash as they are for the helping people stuff.

The amount of school they attend, student debts they acquire, the outrageous insurance premiums they pay, and the ridiculous hours they work... I think they earn what they get.

OUDoc
3/16/2011, 09:24 PM
You operate in a high risk/high reward field. I'm assuming your income reflects that.
Being a family doc is neither high risk nor high financial reward. I have multiple friends making way more than I do with way less school, less debt and less risk of being sued.

Oh cool.. then I guess none of 'em would care if we paid them a reasonable salary of say $40K a year?

No one would have a problem with that, right?

Medical docs tend to be just as in it for the cash as they are for the helping people stuff.
Have you ever met a primary care doctor? Apparently not. You must hang at the country club with the plastic surgeons. I got into medicine because it's damn cool and I can help people. The money is nice but I work my *** off for it. I'm on call 24 hours a day every week and 12 days straight I'm on call for the weekend(once a month).

Do you make $40K a year? I spent 7 years in training after college. I'm $120,000 in debt for medical school (and that's nothing these days). My monthly malpractice payment is $800 and my monthly med school loan repayment for the next 20 years is $900. You think anyone could pay those back on $40K?
Law school must be filled with really interesting people because you guys seem to think no one practices either of our professions because it's what they like. Or what they are good at.
Money comes from somewhere. You can not expect unlimited jury awards for people who are injured. It is not reasonable. There has to be something done.

Mongo
3/16/2011, 09:27 PM
Doc, be honest, you got in for the prostate checks. You arent fooling anyone

KABOOKIE
3/16/2011, 10:22 PM
I just wish lawyers were sued to the same exacting standards as medical professionals.

Lose a case? Get sued. Only recieve $200,000 in settlement instead of $1,000,000? Get sued. Have an objection over ruled? Get sued.

Lawyers may laugh at my examples but THAT is what it is like in the medical field. Every aspect of your job and the decisions you make is scruitnized under 20/20 hindsight. The "We're only after extreme cases of negligence." is bool****.

Midtowner
3/16/2011, 10:31 PM
The amount of school they attend, student debts they acquire, the outrageous insurance premiums they pay, and the ridiculous hours they work... I think they earn what they get.

Me too.

Okla-homey
3/17/2011, 06:13 AM
How does that happen? Probably because Republican leadership, insurance companies and Chesapeake told the House members if they don't change their vote, they aren't getting their reelection campaign funded.

absolutely.

At this point, the only thing to do is wait for this crap to be enjoined by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

I also find it interesting the Speaker of the House, who pushed this bill, has, himself benefitted from a very large recovery in his very own personal injury case. Larger in fact, than would be allowed in this bill he supported.

Okla-homey
3/17/2011, 06:15 AM
Lose a case? Get sued. Only recieve $200,000 in settlement instead of $1,000,000? Get sued. Have an objection over ruled? Get sued.



Now why would lawyers, who make the rules, allow such silliness?:D

Mongo
3/17/2011, 06:06 PM
Shut your whore mouth, Ian.

see how attorneys treat us commoners? Pay us and shut up:D

olevetonahill
3/17/2011, 06:18 PM
I got Doctorin friends and I got Lawyerin friends. I can see both sides of this issue and I gurandayumTee there aint no easy answers :(

StoopTroup
3/17/2011, 06:21 PM
absolutely.

At this point, the only thing to do is wait for this crap to be enjoined by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

I also find it interesting the Speaker of the House, who pushed this bill, has, himself benefitted from a very large recovery in his very own personal injury case. Larger in fact, than would be allowed in this bill he supported.

I don't get guys like that....they in my mind automatically should recuse themselves due to their own situation. It almost sounds like a payoff otherwise.

StoopTroup
3/17/2011, 06:24 PM
I just wish lawyers were sued to the same exacting standards as medical professionals.

Lose a case? Get sued. Only recieve $200,000 in settlement instead of $1,000,000? Get sued. Have an objection over ruled? Get sued.

Lawyers may laugh at my examples but THAT is what it is like in the medical field. Every aspect of your job and the decisions you make is scruitnized under 20/20 hindsight. The "We're only after extreme cases of negligence." is bool****.

losing someone's case isn't as bad as killing their 5 year old son because you botched his tonsillectomy?

Just a thought.....

Mongo
3/17/2011, 07:09 PM
losing someone's case isn't as bad as killing their 5 year old son because you botched his tonsillectomy?

Just a thought.....

dramatic much?

how many botched 5 year old surgeries happen that are rectified vs lost cases?

StoopTroup
3/17/2011, 07:11 PM
dramatic much?

how many botched 5 year old surgeries happen that are rectified vs lost cases?

What surgery would have been better? I'm trying to keep this bitch going here...I could use a little help damnit

Mongo
3/17/2011, 07:14 PM
Tit surgery. Everyone here will agree if she survives, great, nice tits. But if she doesnt, well, there are 10 more behind her willing to give it a shot

StoopTroup
3/17/2011, 07:16 PM
I'm not sure 5 year olds should get implants.

Mongo
3/17/2011, 07:18 PM
nothing like a top heavy 5 year old

Sooner5030
3/17/2011, 07:18 PM
I actually feel different on a case to case basis. At least docs make honest mistake while trying to fix me and not in the name of saving money.

I paid my movers like $12k for a specified date of delivery. They were 10 days late due to a driver saying f'it and going home. They didn't even offer us per diem but instead said they'd only reimburse me for the cheapest sheets and blow up mattress that I could find.

I was mad....didn't sue but I claimed every little scratch for the full replacement value. Claim was approved but still haven't seen the check.

It was Berti Moving and Storage (united stickers on everything) out San Diego. Worst service ever.

Please sue them.

SoonerHoops
4/4/2011, 04:40 PM
Hard caps passed OK Senate today 30-14, now goes to Fallin to sign


At least two Republicans voted against hard caps, then switched their votes at the last minute when they saw the bill was going to pass so they wouldn't be on record voting against the bill. Would hate for their reelection campaigns to not be financed by the State Chamber and insurance companies.


During debate, one Republican in favor of the bill even said "Don't worry about the Constitutionality of this legislation", even though all Senators swear an oath to protect the State and US Constitution before taking office. Embarrassing.

okie52
4/4/2011, 07:32 PM
If it upset the ambulance chasers then its probably a good thing.

SoonerHoops
4/4/2011, 08:18 PM
If it upset the ambulance chasers then its probably a good thing.


Right, because what's bad for trial lawyers is good for the people of Oklahoma :rolleyes:



What's bad for trial lawyers is GREAT for insurance execs, that's for dang sure.

AlbqSooner
4/4/2011, 08:19 PM
The ambulance chasers seldom get cases that will be affected by this legislation. They tend to work on volume of 10K to 50 K settlements for bevo excrement claims.

btb916
4/4/2011, 08:19 PM
I got Doctorin friends and I got Lawyerin friends. I can see both sides of this issue and I gurandayumTee there aint no easy answers :(

This is the truth.

Just to clarify in case these things haven't been mentioned in this thread (I didn't read all of it):

The hard cap applies only to pain and suffering, or non-economic, damages. All of your out-of-pocket, economic, expenses will still be on the table, even if they exceed $350,000.

The cap can also be lifted in certain cases where the defendant has acted particularly poorly. Can still get punitive damages, as well.

Does the cap violate the US or Oklahoma Constitution? Maybe. I did some quick research on the issue, and it looks like different states have ruled in different ways. In Wisconsin, a similar, but not identical, cap violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Wisconsin Constitution. The Supreme Court of Ohio held otherwise, finding a similar statute was constitutional in Ohio. Closer to home, the Supreme Court of Texas found that a cap on damages in med mal cases violated their state constitution.

Our state constitution is different and has most likely been interpreted differently than those states. On the federal level, several courts, including Fourth, Seventh, and Third Circuits (including states of, among others, Virginia, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, respectively) have found that caps on non-economic damages do not violate the Seventh Amendment (right to jury trial preserved) or other various provisions of the constitution.

In other words, it is not nearly as clear that such a provision violates the Constitution as some would have us believe. In fact, my quick search indicates that the weight of authority is that these caps are constitutional.

So...there's a quick overview for anyone who was interested.

Oh, and just to clarify, I do not support this cap, but I do understand the driving concern behind it.

okie52
4/4/2011, 08:30 PM
Right, because what's bad for trial lawyers is good for the people of Oklahoma :rolleyes:



What's bad for trial lawyers is GREAT for insurance execs, that's for dang sure.

Yeah, trial lawyers are great about restoring innocent people to whole.

Condescending Sooner
4/5/2011, 09:03 AM
losing someone's case isn't as bad as killing their 5 year old son because you botched his tonsillectomy?

Just a thought.....

Is you get sent to prison for life after losing a case, that is pretty bad, no?

NormanPride
4/5/2011, 09:53 AM
Aren't doctors essentially being priced out of certain medical fields because they don't earn enough? A combination of medmal insurance and med school loan payments.

Med school is too expensive. If it was cheaper there would
a) be more doctors to drive down the price
b) be lower prices from lower med school payments driving up costs
c) medmal insurance would be more manageable with lower med school payments
d) insurance companies could distribute costs on a greater number of people, mitigating risk and reducing the need to charge so much to each person

Blame the med schools.

saucysoonergal
4/5/2011, 09:54 AM
I blame the profession for not properly policing itself. They let bad doctors practice and turn a blind eye to the quacks. It is their own fault they have high medmal insurance.

OUDoc
4/5/2011, 10:23 AM
I blame the profession for not properly policing itself. They let bad doctors practice and turn a blind eye to the quacks. It is their own fault they have high medmal insurance.

I get reports from the licensure board all the time about disciplinary cases.
I served on a hospital committee that booted a doctor who wasn't paying attention like he should.

I think lawyers misinterpret bad outcomes with bad doctoring. They aren't always one in the same.
Get rid of the bad doctors. They make us all look bad. I have no loyalties to them. Screw 'em.

saucysoonergal
4/5/2011, 10:25 AM
You are in the minority. You have to go out of state to find anyone to testify against a bad doctor. You never hear of a doctor losing his license. Lawyers get theirs pulled ALL THE TIME!

SoonerHoops
4/5/2011, 10:30 AM
The caps can be lifted now when gross negligence is alleged. So now, lawyers are going to claim gross negligence in every case. Then, the doctors insurance policy isn't going to cover the claim. So lawyers will have to go after personal assets.


Another common misconception is that the injured party actually keeps all their economic damages from the recovery. Heck no. Their insurance company gets reimbursed for all their expenses under the subrogation clause.



Again, what we need is insurance reform, not lawsuit reform. The insurance companies are the enemies, not doctors or lawyers.




I think lawyers misinterpret bad outcomes with bad doctoring. They aren't always one in the same.
Get rid of the bad doctors. They make us all look bad. I have no loyalties to them. Screw 'em.


Bad outcomes do not win cases. Good lawyers know that and don't take those types of cases.

OUDoc
4/5/2011, 10:36 AM
You never hear of a doctor losing his license. Lawyers get theirs pulled ALL THE TIME!

That's because you guys are evil. ;)

I don't know about losing a license but I see reports of suspended licenses all the time. We probably only hear about our own professions.

saucysoonergal
4/5/2011, 10:39 AM
That's because you guys are evil. ;)

I don't know about losing a license but I see reports of suspended licenses all the time. We probably only hear about our own professions.

At least you don't hear about us putting our finger in people hineys...






much. ;)

Mongo
4/5/2011, 10:47 AM
You are in the minority. You have to go out of state to find anyone to testify against a bad doctor. You never hear of a doctor losing his license. Lawyers get theirs pulled ALL THE TIME!

you probably deserved it though

:D

SoonerBorn68
4/5/2011, 10:50 AM
Nope, it's more like 16" of a splintered broomstick.

tator
4/5/2011, 10:57 AM
Put me in the camp of agreeing that insurance reform is the key.

And that OUDoc has really soft hands

saucysoonergal
4/5/2011, 11:03 AM
you probably deserved it though

:D

Did you hear about that 37 year old nurse in Norman and the 13 year old boy?

Mjcpr
4/5/2011, 11:05 AM
Did you hear about that 37 year old nurse in Norman and the 13 year old boy?

Go on...

Mongo
4/5/2011, 11:05 AM
Did you hear about that 37 year old nurse in Norman and the 13 year old boy?

was she hawt?

saucysoonergal
4/5/2011, 11:06 AM
http://www.koco.com/2011/0405/27431167_192X240.jpg

http://www.koco.com/mostpopular/27430874/detail.html

saucysoonergal
4/5/2011, 11:08 AM
was she hawt?

No

Mongo
4/5/2011, 11:09 AM
why cant women rape dudes around their own age? just by age and height/weight alone, the weener would be bigger.

NormanPride
4/5/2011, 11:13 AM
Sounds like the kids were going to her house. How does her being a nurse have anything to do with this?

saucysoonergal
4/5/2011, 11:15 AM
Sounds like the kids were going to her house. How does her being a nurse have anything to do with this?

Duh, she was nursing him.

tator
4/5/2011, 11:22 AM
was she hawt?
depends, how drunk are you?

Viking Kitten
4/5/2011, 11:22 AM
I love the bow in her hair. That picture screams "Hi! I am 37 but I haven't emotionally advanced beyond junior high! That's why I like to "do it" with 13 year old boys! *giggle*"

Mississippi Sooner
4/5/2011, 11:23 AM
I love the bow in her hair. That picture screams "Hi! I am 37 but I haven't emotionally advanced beyond junior high! That's why I like to "do it" with 13 year old boys! *giggle*"

Heh. I was just about to post pretty much the same thing.

saucysoonergal
4/5/2011, 11:23 AM
Just another example of Medical Professionals abusing children!!!! ;)

okie52
4/5/2011, 01:35 PM
The caps can be lifted now when gross negligence is alleged. So now, lawyers are going to claim gross negligence in every case. Then, the doctors insurance policy isn't going to cover the claim. So lawyers will have to go after personal assets.

Really? So the ambulance chasers will DELIBERATELY MISFILE every case?

Shocking!!! And gross negligence would have to be PROVEN for the caps to come off and for POSSIBLY the insurance company not to pay. And ambulance chasers sure hate to have to go after personal assets, even on Doctors. Most cases do not approach gross negligence and will continue to
be heard on a negligence only basis so this is a non factor.

Another common misconception is that the injured party actually keeps all their economic damages from the recovery. Heck no. Their insurance company gets reimbursed for all their expenses under the subrogation clause.

Leave it to an ambulance chaser to cry foul on both points of view. A number of ambulance chasers and/or their supporters were just on this board bemoaning a law under consideration that would allow the offending party to subtract the winner's exising insurance coverages from a settlement. Now we hear that the winning party's insurance company should not be able to reimbursed for its expenses from the settlement, you know, the money the insurance company already paid even though they were judged not liable. And surely you know that every major medical policy provides for subrogation in the event that another party is determined to be responsible for medical liabilities. But in accordance with the usual ambulance chaser mentality, anytime the word "insurance company" appears they should be responsible for any and all expenses even when the court says otherwise. Surely you are also aware that settlements include medical expenses....whether those are ones still outstanding or that have already been paid by the vicims medical insurer.

Again, what we need is insurance reform, not lawsuit reform. The insurance companies are the enemies, not doctors or lawyers.

Insurance reform...? Yeah, Ambulance chasers are real heroes. Nobody said doctors were the enemies. I'm sure the ambulance chasers want to find a way to guarantee themselves a paycheck win or lose. How about loser pays? You know, a law that actually restores an innocent party to whole instead of the current system where a party can be found innocent but still be bankrupt from his legal expenses defending himself.





.

SoonerHoops
4/5/2011, 02:25 PM
Okie52, you remind me of the Oklahoma Senators I watched yesterday. They really have no clue what they're talking about, so they make arguments with broad stereotypes, misconceptions, and absolutely no experience with how litigation actually works.


I truly hope no one in your family is even injured due to the negligence of another.

SoonerHoops
4/5/2011, 02:31 PM
There was a press conference today with 2 Republican Senators and 2 Democrat Senators speaking out against HB2128 and how the bill was sneaked through the legislature in committee and the floor.

okie52
4/5/2011, 02:40 PM
Okie52, you remind me of the Oklahoma Senators I watched yesterday. They really have no clue what they're talking about, so they make arguments with broad stereotypes, misconceptions, and absolutely no experience with how litigation actually works.


I truly hope no one in your family is even injured due to the negligence of another.

Haha. What an informed response from a person that supposedly "has a clue".

SoonerHoops
4/5/2011, 02:43 PM
Haha. What an informed response from a person that supposedly "has a clue".


There's really no point in arguing with a brick wall.

saucysoonergal
4/5/2011, 02:49 PM
There's really no point in arguing with a brick wall.

Agreed, but at least he is well trained. ;)

okie52
4/5/2011, 02:55 PM
There's really no point in arguing with a brick wall.

I haven't seen you do any arguing...only reciting the trial lawyer's manifesto and passing it off as fact.

SoonerHoops
4/5/2011, 03:03 PM
I haven't seen you do any arguing...only reciting the trial lawyer's manifesto and passing it off as fact.


Exactly. Trust me, I have much better ways to waste time than arguing with someone who has been force fed stereotypes and lies, and isn't going to change his mind regardless of the facts.

okie52
4/5/2011, 03:08 PM
Exactly. Trust me, I have much better ways to waste time than arguing with someone who has been force fed stereotypes and lies, and isn't going to change his mind regardless of the facts.

Don't break that mirror you are looking into...

SoonerHoops
4/5/2011, 03:32 PM
Don't break that mirror you are looking into...


Haha. I'm a lawyer. My opinion about this matter stems from my education and significant experience representing injured clients, as well as a lot of study on how this legislation may or may not be constitutional and its affect on other states.


What is your opinion based on (other than your obvious hatred for "ambulance chasers" and your ignorance of how civil litigation works)?

okie52
4/5/2011, 03:47 PM
Haha. I'm a lawyer. My opinion about this matter stems from my education and significant experience representing injured clients, as well as a lot of study on how this legislation may or may not be constitutional and its affect on other states.


What is your opinion based on?

Haha. Who'd have guessed you were a lawyer. I have owned some insurance agencies for about 25 years and have been on the other side of the fence with those horrible subrogations (although mainly P&C).

I, BTW, don't really care about the caps other I am glad to see the litigation pendulum swing in the other direction. I'd be much happier with loser pays and seeing an innocent person restored to whole.

Midtowner
4/5/2011, 04:36 PM
Here's the incontravertible truth about plaintiff's attorneys: They only make money if they win judgments or settlements for their clients. The only way that happens is that either the Defendant believes there's a likelihood that the Plaintiff will be able to prove in court that they were injured by the Defendant's actions.

Are they looking to monetize their clients' injuries? Of course. Those clients have been injured, and in this society, instead of an eye for an eye, if someone takes your eye, they have to compensate you for it--trust me, it works out better that way.

We allow juries to do lots of stuff, send people to jail, decide whether someone gets the needle, life and death stuff. If they can do that, why, especially without an iota of evidence, and especially without being reminded that there is such a thing as remittitur (which protects defendants from out of control juries), do we need to take the power away from bodies which we literally trust with life and death decisions from deciding how much an injury is worth in a civil suit?

With these hard caps, you tell potential wrongdoers that if they're going to kill and maim people, go big or go home. Believe me, there are tire companies out there who know that for in the neighborhood of $.25 more per tire, they could have x fewer tire separation incidents per year, but that x incidents will cost $y, so it's more profitable to kill and maim some people than to fix the problem.

Take out the jury's ability to award unlimited damages, and you let those companies know PRECISELY the top limit of what they can get away with before it could become unprofitable.

Are there some shady tort lawyers out there? Absolutely there are, but these aren't the guys filing million dollar lawsuits. These are the guys accepting the first lowball offer an insurance company throws at them. These are the guys who haven't ever in their lives darkened the door of a courthouse. These are paper mills.

There will be exceptions, but where it comes to products liability and medical malpractice, we're talking about very complex areas of the law.

Tort reform isn't going to do away with the problem a lot of you seem to believe the legal system has (frivolous suits being filed and settled for nuisance cash [which really doesn't happen]), it'll limit the ability of the most injured--folks where the juries are convinced that the wrongdoer should be punished to the tune of in excess $350K, to vote their consciences. Again, you're protecting the most injured from the most egregious actors and calling it a good thing. Anyone supporting that should be ashamed.

Sooner5030
4/5/2011, 05:06 PM
We allow juries to do lots of stuff, send people to jail, decide whether someone gets the needle, life and death stuff. If they can do that, why, especially without an iota of evidence, and especially without being reminded that there is such a thing as remittitur (which protects defendants from out of control juries), do we need to take the power away from bodies which we literally trust with life and death decisions from deciding how much an injury is worth in a civil suit?

some of us can differentiate between a criminal act and negligence. A law tells me/jury what premeditated murder is.......not so much what which part of an organ should receive a specific procedure from the practice of medicine standpoint.

Midtowner
4/5/2011, 05:15 PM
some of us can differentiate between a criminal act and negligence. A law tells me/jury what premeditated murder is.......not so much what which part of an organ should receive a specific procedure from the practice of medicine standpoint.

And in the criminal action, we have a forensic expert to say the defendant's prints were on the knife. In the civil action, we have the expert to tell the jury what the defendant allegedly did wrong.

Either way, that's your finder of fact. This country's founders wanted finders of fact, ordinary citizens to decide these things, and now we're saying it's fine to use these bodies to send people to death, but not okay to order insurance companies to require the most egregious bad actors to pay the most horribly injured (or dead) people.

That's actually kind of evil.

Mongo
4/5/2011, 05:15 PM
an insurance dude and a lawyer having at it. end of times are near

and I consider this alot like osu vs *. I hope neither win

okie52
4/5/2011, 05:21 PM
The most egregious actors would seem to be ones guilty of gross negligence rather than just negligence. There aren't caps on gross negligence.

I am sure a tire company could produce a set of tank treads for vehicles that would be entirely safe but I doubt the company would be in business for long. There is a bottom line that all companies must observe...a fact that most trial lawyers overlook.

Sooner5030
4/5/2011, 05:22 PM
And in the criminal action, we have a forensic expert to say the defendant's prints were on the knife. In the civil action, we have the expert to tell the jury what the defendant allegedly did wrong.

putting prints on a knife is not wrong.......that is what the expert is telling you....the prints on the knife along with a shiatload of other evidence may/or may not provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the the murder was committed.

Also, juries f'ck up criminal trials......you think they'd do any better when the possible implications of imprisoning the wrong person is taken away?

okie52
4/5/2011, 05:29 PM
And in this country a person can be declared totally innocent of any wrongdoing and be bankrupt in the process.

That's actually kind of evil.

Half a Hundred
4/5/2011, 05:52 PM
The insurance company's job is to pay up whenever one of its policyholders screws up. That's what the policyholder is paying the insurer for, after all. For some reason, most insurers think that paying up is an affront against both mankind and God. Guessing it's because the shareholders don't like it too much.

The current judicial climate is so pro-defendant these days, that it's patently ridiculous for anyone to think that the trial lawyers are this pernicious force of greed. Then again, some of these insurers won't be happy until it's outright illegal to sue for any claim that the insurer denies.

Sooner5030
4/5/2011, 05:59 PM
The insurance company's job is to pay up whenever one of its policyholders screws up.

no.....it's their job to pool risks, charge premiums based on an actuarial opinion, pay claims based on THE AGREED UPON CONTRACT and provide a return for the shareholders.

where did you get your assumptions?

usmc-sooner
4/5/2011, 06:18 PM
I go away for a while and Homey's a lawyer now!!! This is like that movie the Rookie about that 40 year old rookie pitcher.

Midtowner
4/5/2011, 08:35 PM
And in this country a person can be declared totally innocent of any wrongdoing and be bankrupt in the process.

That's actually kind of evil.

1) Lawyers aren't generally going to take a case on contingency when the defendant isn't financially solvent enough to even pay his attorneys fees, let alone a judgment.

2) Lawyers who work on contingency aren't going to take cases they think will probably go to trial and lose. It's dumb business.

3) In the vast majority of lawsuits, the defendant is covered by an insurance company who has been paid tidy sums of money to defend the defendant from these lawsuits. That's part of the deal with insurance.

Until we have public financing of lawsuits, which I'm assuming you're not in favor of, then the system we have is the best we can do. Tinkering with the rules to give one side an unfair advantage and protect injured people from being made whole is wrong. And when you're talking about loser pays, remember, injured folks don't usually have billion dollar litigation budgets. Insurance companies do. The deck is already stacked.

Midtowner
4/5/2011, 08:36 PM
no.....it's their job to pool risks, charge premiums based on an actuarial opinion, pay claims based on THE AGREED UPON CONTRACT and provide a return for the shareholders.

where did you get your assumptions?

Part of that contract involves paying for legal expenses connected with defending the claim, n'est pas?

btb916
4/5/2011, 09:19 PM
Does anyone know how many jury verdicts have been returned against doctors in Cleveland County in medmal cases?

I do: Zero.

Just FYI.

KABOOKIE
4/5/2011, 09:25 PM
Does anyone know how many jury verdicts have been returned against doctors in Cleveland County in medmal cases?

I do: Zero.

Just FYI.

That's one too many in my mind.

okie52
4/5/2011, 09:31 PM
1) Lawyers aren't generally going to take a case on contingency when the defendant isn't financially solvent enough to even pay his attorneys fees, let alone a judgment.

So an innocent smuck gets steamrollered into bankruptcy even when proven innocent. Great. Oh, he had just enough cash to defend himself.
2) Lawyers who work on contingency aren't going to take cases they think will probably go to trial and lose. It's dumb business.

Well they do take cases they lose but I fail to see your point..

3) In the vast majority of lawsuits, the defendant is covered by an insurance company who has been paid tidy sums of money to defend the defendant from these lawsuits. That's part of the deal with insurance.

So what? I like the lawyers caveat of "its just the cost of doing business" as long as the lawyers get paid. If they are innocent and/or the prevailing party they shouldn't be out any costs. The loser should have to pay and the innocent party/prevailing party should be restored to whole.

Until we have public financing of lawsuits, which I'm assuming you're not in favor of, then the system we have is the best we can do. Tinkering with the rules to give one side an unfair advantage and protect injured people from being made whole is wrong. And when you're talking about loser pays, remember, injured folks don't usually have billion dollar litigation budgets. Insurance companies do. The deck is already stacked.

So you are in favor (no surprise) of an innocent party going bankrupt in proving himself innocent. Quite a racket.

It would be reasonable as a capitalist on my part to support the legal quagmire perpetuated by the trial lawyers. After all, it raises premiums and I get paid on a commission based on those premiums. But somehow it just sticks in my gut that an innocent party still is not restored to whole by this sham of an excuse for a system of justice.

okie52
4/5/2011, 09:33 PM
Part of that contract involves paying for legal expenses connected with defending the claim, n'est pas?

You mean they don't? I'll pass the good news on to the insurance companies.

olevetonahill
4/5/2011, 09:46 PM
:P :rolleyes:

Midtowner
4/5/2011, 10:08 PM
So an innocent smuck gets steamrollered into bankruptcy even when proven innocent. Great. Oh, he had just enough cash to defend himself.

Hypothetically, this would be very rare. Why would a lawyer invest time and money into a case where he's not going to get paid? If he can't win some actual cash for his client, i.e., money in the bank, he gets zip. And as discussed, in the vast majority of cases, the insurance company pays the defense tab, and that's part of what folks pay for when they buy insurance.


So what? I like the lawyers caveat of "its just the cost of doing business" as long as the lawyers get paid. If they are innocent and/or the prevailing party they shouldn't be out any costs. The loser should have to pay and the innocent party/prevailing party should be restored to whole.

Well, we favor two things: 1) We want people to buy insurance. The advantage of that is that the legal defense fees are taken care of by the insurance and that injured people can be made whole. 2) Again, I state that as a society, we favor injured people being made whole over insurance companies making lots of money. Sorry about that.


So you are in favor (no surprise) of an innocent party going bankrupt in proving himself innocent. Quite a racket.

Name an insurance company that was bankrupted by legal fees. Just one.

okie52
4/5/2011, 10:28 PM
Hypothetically, this would be very rare. Why would a lawyer invest time and money into a case where he's not going to get paid? If he can't win some actual cash for his client, i.e., money in the bank, he gets zip. And as discussed, in the vast majority of cases, the insurance company pays the defense tab, and that's part of what folks pay for when they buy insurance.

Yeah, but when the insurance company wins defending their innocent client guess who sill is out money....that's right the innocent insurance company. So it is a cost that is passed on to the consumer because of our faulty system. Now, loser pays on the other hand will right that ridiculous wrong. Now I know attorneys won't like that because it might cut them out but it also would be saving the consumers some money and have the system pointed towards making the innocent parties whole, as it should.

Well, we favor two things: 1) We want people to buy insurance. The advantage of that is that the legal defense fees are taken care of by the insurance and that injured people can be made whole. 2) Again, I state that as a society, we favor injured people being made whole over insurance companies making lots of money. Sorry about that.

No doubt thats your belief with the most important factor being that lawyers get paid regardless of the outcome and injury it causes to the parties involved. Society does not, however, favor predatory legal practices that supplant justice for the sake of enriching lawyers. Sorry about that.

Name an insurance company that was bankrupted by legal fees. Just one.

Name an insurance company or any industry for that matter thtat doesn't pass those costs on to the consumerr. So in the end the consumer will bear the brunt of a system tilted in favor of the lawyers. Now surely you don't want to state that individuals don't go bankrupt from legal expenses? thought not.

.

Midtowner
4/5/2011, 10:46 PM
Yeah, but when the insurance company wins defending their innocent client guess who sill is out money....that's right the innocent insurance company. So it is a cost that is passed on to the consumer because of our faulty system. Now, loser pays on the other hand will right that ridiculous wrong. Now I know attorneys won't like that because it might cut them out but it also would be saving the consumers some money and have the system pointed towards making the innocent parties whole, as it should.

And insurance companies exist to pay for the debts of the insured in the event of a claim. The lawsuit is their choice. They could just pay on the claim, but they choose to fight it in court.

With loser pays, insurance companies make lots more money and injured people won't be able to sue. Believe it or not, sometimes it takes some discovery or even a trial to figure out whether there's a claim. The fact is that these billion dollar companies can always afford to pay their litigation costs better than people who have been injured or who just think they have been injured. The fact is that if we have a loser pays system, there will be more injured people who never get made whole and insurance companies will refuse to pay on legitimate claims more often than they do now (and they often do), and they will still have million dollar litigation budgets. You want to screw the little guy? Try loser pays.


No doubt thats your belief with the most important factor being that lawyers get paid regardless of the outcome and injury it causes to the parties involved. Society does not, however, favor predatory legal practices that supplant justice for the sake of enriching lawyers. Sorry about that.

Wrong. Plaintiff's lawyers don't get paid unless they win. You keep forgetting that important fact. Why on Earth would you take a case you know is a loser?


Name an insurance company or any industry for that matter thtat doesn't pass those costs on to the consumerr. So in the end the consumer will bear the brunt of a system tilted in favor of the lawyers. Now surely you don't want to state that individuals don't go bankrupt from legal expenses? thought not.

That's part of the deal. The customer gets shielded from the litigation expense as well as the consequences of their wrongdoing. Individuals do go bankrupt, but in that case the plaintiff's lawyer loses as well as the plaintiff. Truth be known, I've seen cases with just medical bills in the six-figure range settle for pennies on the dollar because the defendant was insolvent but for his policy limits coverage. That's much more common than defendants going bankrupt from legal fees.

okie52
4/6/2011, 10:32 AM
And insurance companies exist to pay for the debts of the insured in the event of a claim. The lawsuit is their choice. They could just pay on the claim, but they choose to fight it in court.

Insurance companies exist to pay for the debt of their clients for which their clients are legally liable, not the claim amount advanced by a plaintiff's attorney which surprisingly are quite often well in excess of that amount of liability.

An insurance company will pay out of court as a business decision based upon the facts, the money involved and the merits of the claim. The company I represent has a very high success ratio on cases that actually go to court because they are usually very sure of their cases chances for success. But we are still having to pay our attorney's fees in spite of winning the case.

With loser pays, insurance companies make lots more money and injured people won't be able to sue. Believe it or not, sometimes it takes some discovery or even a trial to figure out whether there's a claim. The fact is that these billion dollar companies can always afford to pay their litigation costs better than people who have been injured or who just think they have been injured. The fact is that if we have a loser pays system, there will be more injured people who never get made whole and insurance companies will refuse to pay on legitimate claims more often than they do now (and they often do), and they will still have million dollar litigation budgets. You want to screw the little guy? Try loser pays.

Loser pays does nothing to affect a law firms ability to offer contingency plans for their clients. They can take every case under loser pays that they take now if they choose to do so. However, their client may have 2nd thoughts if the merits of his case are weak and is faced with paying the defendants costs.

Wrong. Plaintiff's lawyers don't get paid unless they win. You keep forgetting that important fact. Why on Earth would you take a case you know is a loser?

Defendants and/or insurance companies lawyers get paid win or lose. Plaintiffs are almost never responsible for the defendants legal fees. Plaintiffs legal expenses are covered if they win so they at least have a chance to be made whole. Defendants...almost never.

That's part of the deal. The customer gets shielded from the litigation expense as well as the consequences of their wrongdoing. Individuals do go bankrupt, but in that case the plaintiff's lawyer loses as well as the plaintiff. Truth be known, I've seen cases with just medical bills in the six-figure range settle for pennies on the dollar because the defendant was insolvent but for his policy limits coverage. That's much more common than defendants going bankrupt from legal fees.

We are speaking of defendants that win their case but still go bankrupt or are financially devastated from the costs of defending themselves. Plaintiffs and their lawyers aren't going to get any money from them because they lost but the poor defendant is still broke. That's not a system that about restoring an innocent person to whole. It is a system weighted in favor of the plaintiff.



.

We have had this argument before and nothing has changed. You think that our system is great yet most of the world goes by loser pays and has much smaller dockets to show for it.

For those that support universal healthcare and use European countries as models because their costs are about 60% of the costs of the US, almost all of those countries are loser pays and have caps. Funny thing in this country is that many of those same proponents of universal healthcare don't want to embrace the full model of European healthcare which would include its cost containment features like loser pays, caps, etc...and will be surprised when the costs savings don't approach those of the Europeans.

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 10:36 AM
.

We have had this argument before and nothing has changed. You think that our system is great yet most of the world goes by loser pays and has much smaller dockets to show for it.

For those that support universal healthcare and use European countries as models because their costs are about 60% of the costs of the US, almost all of those countries are loser pays and have caps. Funny thing in this country is that many of those same proponents of universal healthcare don't want to embrace the full model of European healthcare which would include its cost containment features like loser pays, caps, etc...and will be surprised when the costs savings don't approach those of the Europeans.

Litigation expense is such a small factor in the cost of healthcare that it's not even really worth talking about.

According to the NYT, you're talking about 1% to 1.5% of healthcare cost tied up in litigation expense.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/

And we favor more hurt people being compensated, not less. We favor hurt people being made whole after being the victims of someone else's negligence rather than a corporation returning a juicy dividend to shareholders.

okie52
4/6/2011, 10:50 AM
Litigation expense is such a small factor in the cost of healthcare that it's not even really worth talking about.

According to the NYT, you're talking about 1% to 1.5% of healthcare cost tied up in litigation expense.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/

And we favor more hurt people being compensated, not less. We favor hurt people being made whole after being the victims of someone else's negligence rather than a corporation returning a juicy dividend to shareholders.

Litigation costs seemed to be important to Kerry and Hatch in the same article and Bradley suggested enjoining tort reform with healthcare. That also didn't include defensive medical costs that are reflective of our legal system.

We? Who are we? Most people seem to favor tort reform although I haven't seen any poll numbers lately. Looks like the OK state legislature does too.

saucysoonergal
4/6/2011, 10:52 AM
Litigation costs seemed to be important to Kerry and Hatch in the same article and Bradley suggested enjoining tort reform with healthcare. That also didn't include defensive medical costs that are reflective of our legal system.

We? Who are we? Most people seem to favor tort reform although I haven't seen any poll numbers lately. Looks like the OK state legislature does too.

The average IQ at the Capitol is about 78 since term limits was passed.

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 10:57 AM
Litigation costs seemed to be important to Kerry and Hatch in the same article and Bradley suggested enjoining tort reform with healthcare.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "enjoining."

That said, Hatch thinks the internet is a series of interconnected tubes. He also said that the majority of medmal cases are frivolous. The data out there would say otherwise. So these guys are essentially policy makers who haven't really examined the facts, so why should I care what they have to say about anything?


That also didn't include defensive medical costs that are reflective of our legal system.

Oh yeah, those poor doctors and hospitals just hate doing things which make them billions of dollars. Poor, poor medical care providers. And how many lives have been saved by this evil defensive medicine?

Even so, doing an unwarranted procedure isn't even necessary to stave off a medmal case. The provider just has to meet whatever the standard of care is.


We? Who are we? Most people seem to favor tort reform although I haven't seen any poll numbers lately. Looks like the OK state legislature does too.

And if "most people" are as misinformed as Hatch and Kerry were in that article, it's no wonder. "Tort reform" has no inherent meaning. Reform always sounds good, most people favor anything with the word reform attached to it. I'll bet "most people" would also be in favor of toenail reform.

Let's call it corporate civil tort immunity and see if people still think it's a good idea.

okie52
4/6/2011, 11:13 AM
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "enjoining."

Combining would be a better word.

That said, Hatch thinks the internet is a series of interconnected tubes. He also said that the majority of medmal cases are frivolous. The data out there would say otherwise. So these guys are essentially policy makers who haven't really examined the facts, so why should I care what they have to say about anything?

Yep, they are just uninformed. Why are much of the rest of the world using loser pays? Just heartless baztards?

Oh yeah, those poor doctors and hospitals just hate doing things which make them billions of dollars. Poor, poor medical care providers. And how many lives have been saved by this evil defensive medicine?

How much waste is involved with it? How many times is it unnecessary? How many lives have been saved by unnecessary practices? Let's go back to tank treads on cars for the tire manufacturer vs solvency.

Even so, doing an unwarranted procedure isn't even necessary to stave off a medmal case. The provider just has to meet whatever the standard of care is.

Better tell that to the doctors, hospitals and their insurers. They seem to think it does.

And if "most people" are as misinformed as Hatch and Kerry were in that article, it's no wonder. "Tort reform" has no inherent meaning. Reform always sounds good, most people favor anything with the word reform attached to it. I'll bet "most people" would also be in favor of toenail reform.

Well most people favor immigration reform, too. But nothing wrong there either.

Let's call it corporate civil tort immunity and see if people still think it's a good idea.

How about calling it "protecting the innocent man". A foreign concept I know but I think it will fly.



.

saucysoonergal
4/6/2011, 11:17 AM
"protecting the innocent man".

That is what the legislature/guv is trying to not do.


It is all a shell game to help out the insurance industry. Look at the creeps who work in that industry...[eyeing okie52]

okie52
4/6/2011, 11:21 AM
That is what the legislature/guv is trying to not do.


It is all a shell game to help out the insurance industry. Look at the creeps who work in that industry...[eyeing okie52]

Well insurance companies do have to use lawyers, sickening I know, but in the current system the cards are stacked against us.

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 12:27 PM
.Yep, they are just uninformed. Why are much of the rest of the world using loser pays? Just heartless baztards?[/quote]

Historically, their civil justice systems have been set up differently. There are policy arguments going both ways, but it is generally accepted that the American Rule makes civil justice more accessible to everyone and generally results in more injured people being made whole.


How much waste is involved with it? How many times is it unnecessary? How many lives have been saved by unnecessary practices? Let's go back to tank treads on cars for the tire manufacturer vs solvency.

It's tough for me to equate wasteful spending to practices which are known to save lives. I guess you'd have no problem going to the family member of someone saved by one of these "defensive medicine" procedures (and such people would have to exist for these procedures to be deemed necessary by docs and insurance carriers) and tell them that their family member should have died for the greater good. It's almost like you're advocating death panels.


Well most people favor immigration reform, too. But nothing wrong there either.

And no one know what immigration reform even means. You could be talking about throwing the border gates open or building a moat filled with alligators across the border. But call it "reform" and most people are on board without any specifics.


How about calling it "protecting the innocent man". A foreign concept I know but I think it will fly.

Well, that's what the so-called innocent man pays the insurance company to do. With litigation expense being about 1% to 1.5% of healthcare expense, how could you be against people being fully compensated for their injuries at the expense of an industry which has been experiencing record profits every year despite an economic downturn? Do they need more profits so that injured people can go uncompensated?

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 12:34 PM
Well insurance companies do have to use lawyers, sickening I know, but in the current system the cards are stacked against us.

Oh sure. Let's see how things are stacked against you.

To file a medmal case, I have to get an affidavit for a medical professional attesting that what happened was negligent. Cost? Around $5K, minimum. Does the defense have to attach a similar affidavit to their Answer stating that there was no negligence? Nope. How's that stacked against insurers, exactly?

This new round of reform serves to immunize the absolute worst offenders (those who a jury would judge to be liable in excess of $350K for non-economic damages), it serves to make the insurance companies the beneficiaries of any life insurance policies a deceased person had, etc.

Whose deck is being stacked against whom, exactly?

SoonerHoops
4/6/2011, 01:38 PM
Originally Posted by okie52
Well insurance companies do have to use lawyers, sickening I know, but in the current system the cards are stacked against us.


I laughed.

okie52
4/6/2011, 01:43 PM
Yep, they are just uninformed. Why are much of the rest of the world using loser pays? Just heartless baztards?

Historically, their civil justice systems have been set up differently. There are policy arguments going both ways, but it is generally accepted that the American Rule makes civil justice more accessible to everyone and generally results in more injured people being made whole.

And a docket that is a whole lot more crammed and there dam sure isn't another country trying to imitate our system.

It's tough for me to equate wasteful spending to practices which are known to save lives. I guess you'd have no problem going to the family member of someone saved by one of these "defensive medicine" procedures (and such people would have to exist for these procedures to be deemed necessary by docs and insurance carriers) and tell them that their family member should have died for the greater good. It's almost like you're advocating death panels.

How about a trillion dollars per extra life saved through unnecessary tests since costs seem irrelevant if it might save one extra life. Great for the family that has a loved one saved...not so good with the rest of the public that have to shoulder those costs.

And its like you're still advocating tank treads for cars. Great. Nobody gets a blowout but they really can't afford to ever change treads. Costs are irrelevant in your scheme of things.



And no one know what immigration reform even means. You could be talking about throwing the border gates open or building a moat filled with alligators across the border. But call it "reform" and most people are on board without any specifics.

I'll bet everyone knows the common denominator of immigration reform would be to stop illegal immigration.

Well, that's what the so-called innocent man pays the insurance company to do. With litigation expense being about 1% to 1.5% of healthcare expense, how could you be against people being fully compensated for their injuries at the expense of an industry which has been experiencing record profits every year despite an economic downturn? Do they need more profits so that injured people can go uncompensated?

Nope. That's not what it is about at all although you certainly like to make sure an innocent person/party is never restored to whole as though thats just the price of our system. And this certainly isn't just about health insurance. You can throw individual lawsuits in there along with property and casualty suits. [/QUOTE]



.

okie52
4/6/2011, 01:54 PM
Oh sure. Let's see how things are stacked against you.

To file a medmal case, I have to get an affidavit for a medical professional attesting that what happened was negligent. Cost? Around $5K, minimum. Does the defense have to attach a similar affidavit to their Answer stating that there was no negligence? Nope. How's that stacked against insurers, exactly?

This new round of reform serves to immunize the absolute worst offenders (those who a jury would judge to be liable in excess of $350K for non-economic damages), it serves to make the insurance companies the beneficiaries of any life insurance policies a deceased person had, etc.

Whose deck is being stacked against whom, exactly?

The worst offenders would be the ones guilty of gross negligence....no caps.

What does it take to file a suit on a P & C case? Get a roofer to agree with you?

How many ambulance chaser ads do you see on TV every day? Business is good.

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 05:26 PM
And a docket that is a whole lot more crammed and there dam sure isn't another country trying to imitate our system.

And what other country is trying to copy what other country's civil justice system? I'm aware of none.


How about a trillion dollars per extra life saved through unnecessary tests since costs seem irrelevant if it might save one extra life. Great for the family that has a loved one saved...not so good with the rest of the public that have to shoulder those costs.

A trillion dollars per extra saved life? Are you proposing that as the actual cost for a saved life? But if you want to set up some sort of insurance company death panel to decide what a life is worth, hard caps will definitely help you get there.


And its like you're still advocating tank treads for cars. Great. Nobody gets a blowout but they really can't afford to ever change treads. Costs are irrelevant in your scheme of things.

And there you go again with hyperbole. Tank treads versus a company who knowingly manufactures tires which will fail at a known rate, where the company can calculate that it's cheaper to kill people than to fix the problem with their tires. It's not quite the same thing.


I'll bet everyone knows the common denominator of immigration reform would be to stop illegal immigration. [/COLOR]

No, they don't. Some people want open borders. Ask a Roman Catholic Bishop what he thinks immigration reform should consist of.

Heck.. ask anyone whether they want what's considered illegal immigration to change. "Immigration reform" itself, alone, like "tort reform" is a meaningless political buzzword. It's not even something you can argue against.

[quote]Nope. That's not what it is about at all although you certainly like to make sure an innocent person/party is never restored to whole as though thats just the price of our system. And this certainly isn't just about health insurance. You can throw individual lawsuits in there along with property and casualty suits.

As I said, we value people above profits in this country. That's not a bad thing.

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 05:30 PM
The worst offenders would be the ones guilty of gross negligence....no caps.

Gross negligence is defined as not showing even the *slightest* care. Does that mean that if the Doc who operated on me while drunk had a shot of espresso prior to the surgery showed some slight care and was therefore not grossly negligent? We don't know. The statute is written so that just about nothing could ever be grossly negligent.


What does it take to file a suit on a P & C case? Get a roofer to agree with you?

A verified Petition.


How many ambulance chaser ads do you see on TV every day? Business is good.

None. I don't watch daytime television, and I agree, those guys on the whole suck as human beings. But P&C adjusters should love them because they settle short to their clients' detriment every single time.

SoonerHoops
4/6/2011, 06:29 PM
Many of the most outspoken opponents of tort reform are conservative Republican defense lawyers.

okie52
4/6/2011, 06:31 PM
And what other country is trying to copy what other country's civil justice system? I'm aware of none.

Most of the other european countries are already loser pays.



A trillion dollars per extra saved life? Are you proposing that as the actual cost for a saved life? But if you want to set up some sort of insurance company death panel to decide what a life is worth, hard caps will definitely help you get there.

No, I merely stated a trillion as an extreme regarding how costs are relevant. You seem to think they aren't.



And there you go again with hyperbole. Tank treads versus a company who knowingly manufactures tires which will fail at a known rate, where the company can calculate that it's cheaper to kill people than to fix the problem with their tires. It's not quite the same thing.

It is quite the same thing. If a company produces tires that are 50% less likely to blowout at an additional cost of $100 per tire but can't sell them while the competition continues to sell its product at $100 less and remain profitable it won't be much good to the public nor to the shareholders. There are cost considerations to every business and ignoring them would guarantee failure.

[quote]I'll bet everyone knows the common denominator of immigration reform would be to stop illegal immigration. [/COLOR]

No, they don't. Some people want open borders. Ask a Roman Catholic Bishop what he thinks immigration reform should consist of.

Heck.. ask anyone whether they want what's considered illegal immigration to change. "Immigration reform" itself, alone, like "tort reform" is a meaningless political buzzword. It's not even something you can argue against.

I'll go ahead and take a big chance here and state that most people think immigration reform means stopping illegal immigration. The devil may be in the details but most polls show that securing the borders would be the first step the public wants taken. Roman Catholic Bishops should be happy with our current open border policy as we have 12,000,000 illegals here to prove it.



As I said, we value people above profits in this country. That's not a bad thing.

Profits aren't even part of the equation. People value justice in this country. An innocent party being financially devastated in proving his innocence isn't justice.

okie52
4/6/2011, 06:46 PM
Obviously we don't agree. There really is no point in further discussion as we will continue to go in circles around the topic.

I don't think you have any worries about the immediate future unless this OK law has you worried. Most of your cases will never approach the cap limits. And I would agree with you that if this law was significant we should expect to see medmal rates come down. I doubt that will happen either.

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 07:21 PM
Many of the most outspoken opponents of tort reform are conservative Republican defense lawyers.

Who are accepting campaign donations from insurance companies. Yes, these are spokesmen whose objective opinions you can trust.

I, on the other hand don't even do medical malpractice. I have one complex torts case in the office right now, and that's generally about the way it is.

I don't really have much of a dog in this hunt, I just have a better understanding of how things work than say, an insurance agent.

okie52
4/6/2011, 07:27 PM
Ahhh, just had to get one last one in.

Lawyers have a great understanding how things work in a legal system that they have concocted...except when it comes to business. There they are utterly clueless as you have demonstrated.

Midtowner
4/6/2011, 10:39 PM
Yeah, lawyers have a better understanding at the system they work in than folks who don't work in it.

Amazing.