I'm going to give a small story, just to illustrate my point.
Before I was born, my parents had a daughter (my sister), this was back in the early 1970's. I was not born until the mid 1980's. The doctor who was supposed to deliver my sister came in drunk and it resulted in my sister being delivered improperly, and having severe brain damage. My parents sued the doctor and were awarded the equivalent of $ 40 million USD back then.
My sister is in her late 30's now. The $ 40 million (1970's money) that my parents were awarded has gone solely towards taking care of my sister. We have had to hired a nurse to come and live with our family since she needs 24 hour, round the clock care. Our focus is on making her life as comfortable as possible. We take her on many trips, to movies, etc. The money ONLY goes to providing her care and for her basic needs, nothing else.
Now, in the "health care debate" there has been talk about "Tort Reform" but I am wondering if there is any middle ground. I mean, if a medical professional does something that is going to affect the patient for the rest of their life, to the point that they can't ever work, shouldn't they be compensated? I mean, at the time this happened to my sister they ruled that it was entirely preventable with the right staff on hand and that is 100% the fault of the doctor.
I know not all cases are this extreme, but do you think there is any middle ground at all? Or is only one extreme or the other?
stung4ever
Not a fan of caps on damages, but I'd like to see fines on people who file frivolous lawsuits, and LARGE fines on the law firms that file them.
Tmess2
The problem with the middle ground is that nobody really wants to understand the legal system to find a middle ground.
There are already provisions in place designed to stop frivolous law suits and sanction attorneys who file them. The problem is that frivolous is in the eye of the beholder.
My own preferred solution is to replace the current system with something a little bit closer to the worker's compensation system. To some extent, such a system would increase some medical expenses by eliminating the fault requirement. On the other hand, it would also eliminate the need to practice "defensive medicine" to avoid law suits. With a worker's comp type systems, doctors would have the incentive to merely follow best practices and would not need to fear that adopting a new practice would expose them to increased liability.
SCOTT M
I am sorry for the tragedy your family suffered as a result of a drunken doctor. Your parents deserve every dime of their judgment.
The problem is not with cases like yours. The problem is with frivolous malpractice suits, many of which are settled before trial by attorneys who are willing to take a small percentage of what they would make if a jury returns a large award in exchange for a smaller amount for a pre-trial settlement.
All malpractice suits should be bar trials, where judges hear and decide the cases. The judges have a much better understanding of medical protocols than most juries do. Plaintiffs' litigators are allowed to base their cases on winning the sympath of jurors. Malpractice is supposed to be based on negligence (which certainly applies in your parents' case), not the sympathy of jurors.
We don't need to "compromise." We just need to hold doctors accountable for negligence but not for unforeseen and inforeseeable outcomes that, be definition, are not expected.
stratm663
IMO, there is no compromise on this issue. your family's situation is EXACTLY why we have this system. and why it works . WELL! i might add.
i would add one more tid bit. just food for thought...in a nationalized single payer system your sister's care would be paid for life. and even the biggest moron knows you are gonna have a REAL hard time suing the Federal Govt. ..
OH...imagine that?! tort reform SOLVED! and her care provided! hmmm
quite simple, but the "anti-socialists" won't get it...
Orignal From: Malpractice lawsuits, is there a compromise?
Post a Comment