I mean... they feel financial services bonuses should be controlled... medical services should be controlled.... but hands off tort reform like medical malpractice... why is that? does it make sense?
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/200…
Section 2531, entitled "Medical Liability Alternatives," establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys' fees or imposes caps on damages
Or is 'consistency the hobgoblin of small minds?'
Ivan
Because capping legal fees and settlements would inhibit litigation of the most serious cases of malpractice. The proposed law changes are aimed at tackling the numerous minor cases that cause so many problems & are often scurrilous. Quite simple really.
Orignal From: Why is high government intervention good except for the lawyers?
Post a Comment