what would you set that amount to. In other words if your child need to have an arm amputated and the surgeon took off the wrong arm, how much money should you be able to get for the mistake max?
Sorry I'm Ralph
If my child needed an operation, you can be sure I would be there and make sure it was done correctly.
Jimmbbo
The punitive damages should be set to a maximum amount, say $ 500,000 but that is separate from the actual malpractice, which should be determined on a specific injury basis by a professional board, which would include reparative treatment and a fixed payment.
OR
Make it "loser pays" which will cut out frivolous lawsuits
Average College Student
They should be given free health care like a guarantee.
The Zeitgeist
It's ironic how the same people that preach the bible of "free-market capitalism" jump ship on this issue.
Wouldn't a "free-market capitalist" be AGAINST any sort of maximum on restitution?
I mean, after all, is "government regulation" the enemy here? Wouldn't a cap be government sticking their nose into the private sector? Seems to me that it would...
I wonder if they realize how hypocritical they are being?
BekindtoAnimals22
Tort reform is more about getting rid of frivolous lawsuits and awards that are way over the top like the lady that got millions for spilling hot coffee on herself. That amount should still be up to the jury to cover future medical and personal needs, lost compensation, etc. In a case you mentioned, they should get plenty.
A. E. Moreira
The issue is over punitive damages awarded, not compensatory damages.
When people talk about capping damages, they are not talking about capping compensatory damages.
Charlie
$ 500,000 plus any money you lost.
jeeper_peeper321
That's not really the issue tort reform is meant to prevent.
Tort reform is meant to prevent things like the silicone breast implant law suits.
Where lawyers won billions in judgments against the makers of silicone breast implants
Saying they caused a whole host of medical problems.
When there was no science to back up the claims.
IE: any women who had ever had breast implants, that later developed any medical condition.
They were suing and saying the breast implants caused the medical conditions.
They were using hury trails, and playing on the emotions of the juries.
Finally the federal government and the FDA did a huge study on silicone breast implants,
And found they did not cause Any problems at all.
Thats stopped all the law suits, because just how do you sue, when they can show a government study saying there are no issues.
But it didn't do a thing about the billions that had been awarded in the past, over an issue that never existed.
But of course, with tort reform, there must be actual state medical board reform.
Because to many state medical boards, refuse to terminate the medical licenses of doctors who make repeated mistakes.
But when you have doctors like baby doctors, getting out of the practice, because they are being sued so much, over issues they have no control over, that 80% of thier income goes to malpractive insurance.
Something must be done.
Ben
Many insurance companies have set amounts they are prepared to pay out in the event of a injury, or loss of use due to injury. or loss of limb, etc. They have a complete list to cover every scenario. In the event of incompetence, additional amounts should be paid, based on the age and disability of the victim.
The public needs to be protected by jury's willing to agree to huge settlements that don't fit the victims loss. This eventually gets passed on to every individual who pays for health care.
A practical approach based on what is reasonable, is the most logical answer.
cadcommando2003
Nobody is arguing against people having the right to sue if a doctor screws up, but when is enough, enough? Remember the fat lady that spilled McDonalds coffee on her thighs and sued them for millions of dollars? I know that was not a malpractice case, but the frivolous nature of her suit is a perfect example of what Tort Reform would prevent. Not only would it save us all on our premiums, it would save doctors on their liability insurance, and it would save the judicial system the time on money on their dockets from having to hear so many foundless cases. LOL
Whoever must decide the worth of a little boy's arm or put a value on a person's life has a thankless job. No matter what they decide, there will be people like you and I that do not agree with them.
Orignal From: If you don't allow people to be compensated over a certain amount for Medical Malpractice?
Post a Comment