Why or why not?
@ Sparky - I agree 100%.
Brian
I'm on the fence on this one. There is no question that awards have gotten out of hand but I hate the idea of limiting legitimate damages. If they do limit them they better take a lot of care as to how it is done..
sparky
No but frivolous lawsuits should cost the person who files the case.
♥ROXXX♥
There is so much Insurance fraud. I agree that people should be compensated for wrong doing, but people get too greedy. Also the fraudulent claims are outrageous.
Smoove B
Damages should be limited to actual damages, no punitive damages but no artificially low caps like $ 500K either. A lifetime of lost or diminished earning capacity or a lifetime of medical care will be much more than $ 500K. Causing someone's death much more than that.
Liberal Asskicker
Yes.
There has to be a threat of penalty in place, but until we have guarantees in cures and procedures, we can't hold medical professionals responsible for the state of the industry, only for their own intentional wrongdoing.
yellow.45
no. if you were to cut off the wrong arm during a medical procedure roughly $ 250,000 does not cover changing life drastically. by going to a hospital the hospital and I are entering into a contractual agreement. If the hospital staff does not hold up to their end of that agreement the hospital is liable for that failure. a cap can not take into account all the mistakes that can be made during a surgical procedure including loss of life.
Mark G
Yes,
Reasonable guidline limits can be determined that can give juries a range of award values to consider. Maybe even including a formula that considers age and impact to the persons future earning capability and impact to their living expenses
Basically some means to put some predictability to an award value. Take the uncertanty out of the award amount and you make it easier and cheaper to insure against.
Libs, almost as smart as lint
Yes, it's one of the big reasons health care is expensive, but libs are beholden to trial lawyers and unions who want no limits.
scaerdrys
Yes.
In the first place, it would discourage assholes from leveling frivolous malpractice lawsuits, which cost consumers tons of money. In fact, if we developed an efficient system of penalizing frivolous lawsuits, and the clients and lawyers who level them (cough...cough...JOHN EDWARDS), we would go a long way in making medical care affordable. That, and, I don't have to worry about having my baby delivered by a doctor who is stressing out about me suing him if it turns out that the kid has cystic fibrosis or something....
In the second place, when punitive damages pretty much ensure that your children's children will still be living in the lap of luxery, it's all a bit disporportionate. I would like to see damages strictly leveled to actual damage. I realize that medical malpractice can really fuck people's lives up, and I would agree that they should be compensated accordingly, but I have also seen L&D court cases that would make your head spin.
Peace
Rabbi_Dan
No, because that will restrict compensation for people who were actually harmed by malpractice. I'd be happy to see "caps" on what lawyers can receive from suits!
I do support limiting the types of claims that can be filed, so that frivolous suits will be stopped.
Orignal From: Do you support limitations on medical malpractice lawsuits?
Post a Comment