Democrats, Trial Lawyers Kill Thousands MORE Jobs (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

The only thing more outrageous than the fact that an American drug company can follow every FDA guideline and still be sued into bankruptcy over unforeseeable side effects is that trial lawyers can still count on Democrats to keep anything from getting done about frivolous lawsuits. They will probably try to blame President Bush for the thousands of jobs Merck had to cut, but the reality is that our system rewards greed and punishes innovation. This will eventually do to drug research what it did to flu vaccine manufacturing.

 

[JustMyPOV]

The only thing more outrageous than the fact that an American drug company can follow every FDA guideline and still be sued into bankruptcy over unforeseeable side effects is that trial lawyers can still count on Democrats to keep anything from getting done about frivolous lawsuits. They will probably try to blame President Bush for the thousands of jobs Merck had to cut, but the reality is that our system rewards greed and punishes innovation. This will eventually do to drug research what it did to flu vaccine manufacturing.

Last I checked, it was the duty of judges and juries to determine which cases are frivolous, and which ones are legitimate. The only solution I've heard proposed by conservatives is to cap rewards which does little more than give companies a free ticket to sell whatever crap they want regardless of how it may injure or kill people. This is the typical conservative mantra... All for the corporations and screw anybody who gets in their way.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Last I checked, it was the duty of judges and juries to determine which cases are frivolous, and which ones are legitimate. The only solution I've heard proposed by conservatives is to cap rewards which does little more than give companies a free ticket to sell whatever crap they want regardless of how it may injure or kill people. This is the typical conservative mantra... All for the corporations and screw anybody who gets in their way.

As opposed to the "let's blame everybody else for our problems" Liberal chant.

 

[shuamort]

The only thing more outrageous than the fact that an American drug company can follow every FDA guideline and still be sued into bankruptcy over unforeseeable side effects is that trial lawyers can still count on Democrats to keep anything from getting done about frivolous lawsuits. They will probably try to blame President Bush for the thousands of jobs Merck had to cut, but the reality is that our system rewards greed and punishes innovation. This will eventually do to drug research what it did to flu vaccine manufacturing.

It's more than just all of the lawsuits, it's the ridiculously high awards that come out of these cases.

Bush Pushes For Tort Reform

Mr. Bush said that large malpractice awards have increased the cost of business so much that doctors have to close their businesses or scale back services. He said it also drives up the cost of personal health insurance.

"There is a constant risk of being hit by a massive jury award, so doctors end up paying tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands to settle a medical claim out of court even when they know they have done nothing wrong," the president said.

Lawyers in the area say the legal situation has been exaggerated and Mr. Bush is demonizing the county even though large malpractice awards have been scarce. Leading Democrats in Congress say the number of doctors practicing in Illinois has risen in recent years, despite higher malpractice insurance rates that they say are driven by the state's weak insurance regulation.

I work for an insurance company and we used to insure doctors/hospitals/clinics. Used to. The cost for medical malpractice lawsuits turned a formerly profitable form of insurance into something that would've bankrupted us if we didn't get out. The reason? Huge awards given for med mal lawsuits. The democrats that say that the number of drs in Illinois has risen. That may be the case, but states like Louisiana, Tennessee and Mississippi come to mind as I think back about all of the doctors I talked with who had to close up shop after we stopped insuring them. Why? Because they couldn't afford med mal insurance anymore. Some of them were doctors who had never had a claim against them, but just couldn't afford to live and practice in those states without insurance (and you have to have insurance to practice).

 

[JustMyPOV]

As opposed to the "let's blame everybody else for our problems" Liberal chant.

Souds more like a Republican chant at this point. After all, who's still blaming the former Clinton administration for virtually everything after 5 years of total control over the executive and legislative branches of the federal government?

Back to the point now... If you buy a product that is supposed to do something to benefit you, but instead it causes you to go blind, you're not going to sue the company that sold you the product? I seriously doubt that you'd just shrug it off and say "Oh, well." It is easy for you to sit back on the sidelines and push for capped rewards, but if it was actually YOU who suffered an injury, or lost a family member as a result of a company's negligence, I'm willing to bet you'd have a swift change of heart.

 

[shuamort]

Souds more like a Republican chant at this point. After all, who's still blaming the former Clinton administration for virtually everything after 5 years of total control over the executive and legislative branches of the federal government?

Back to the point now... If you buy a product that is supposed to do something to benefit you, but instead it causes you to go blind, you're not going to sue the company that sold you the product? I seriously doubt that you'd just shrug it off and say "Oh, well." It is easy for you to sit back on the sidelines and push for capped rewards, but if it was actually YOU who suffered an injury, or lost a family member as a result of a company's negligence, I'm willing to bet you'd have a swift change of heart.

The problem is, how do you put a price tag on life? Your mother's life may be worth is $20 billion, but is everyone's mother's life worth that much? How do you quantify and qualify what the value should be? Caps on punitive damages need to be made. (Of course, should a person be paralyzed for life, lose a leg, arm, or the ability to work or function, they should be compensated as appropriate. But punitive damages are different. These are monetary awards that are meant to punish the company/doctor/hospital/manufacturer.)

 

[KCConservative]

Souds more like a Republican chant at this point. After all, who's still blaming the former Clinton administration for virtually everything after 5 years of total control over the executive and legislative branches of the federal government?

I give up. Who?

 

[aps]

What I find strange is that Texas juries, a total red state, are famous for giving incredibly high awards to plaintiffs. Could it be that every single person on one of these juries is a democrat? :roll:

I went to law school in Texas and the classmates who are doing plaintiff's work are doing VERY well financially.

Texas Produces the Nation’s Fourth and Eighth Largest Verdicts of 2001
http://www.calahouston.org/jumbo01.html

After Texas jurors found that Merck had intentionally withheld the risks associated with its heart drug, Vioxx, they awarded Carol Ernst a whopping $229 million in punitive damages
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0825/p03s01-uspo.html

The State Senate recently passed a major lawsuit reform bill addressing many aspects of the civil justice system including class action lawsuits and product liability. The centerpiece of this legislation though is medical malpractice liability reform including a cap on non-economic damages. This cap on non-economic damage awards only applies to medical malpractice claims and is intended to reign in high jury awards and discourage frivolous lawsuits that are contributing to rising health care costs.
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist30/pr03/c052803a.htm

 

[Iriemon]

As opposed to the "let's blame everybody else for our problems" Liberal chant.

As opposed to the "lets screw 'em and get immunity" conservative chant.

 

[JustMyPOV]

The problem is, how do you put a price tag on life? Your mother's life may be worth is $20 billion, but is everyone's mother's life worth that much? How do you quantify and qualify what the value should be? Caps on punitive damages need to be made. (Of course, should a person be paralyzed for life, lose a leg, arm, or the ability to work or function, they should be compensated as appropriate. But punitive damages are different. These are monetary awards that are meant to punish the company/doctor/hospital/manufacturer.)

To answer the question that I made bold in your post, that is where the judges and juries come into the picture. That's their job to decide. That particular power belongs in the courts, NOT in the legislature. That is the sort of thing that needs to be decided on a case by case basis by someone who knows the facts of the case, not by someone behind a desk in Washington who is only considering the "big picture", and not taking any time at all to consider the needs, suffering, or toll taken on the actual individuals involved.

You want tort reform, how about defining a clear standard for what a "frivolous" lawsuit is, then use that standard to invoke HARSH punishments for those that abuse the court system for personal gain?

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by JustMyPOV
Souds more like a Republican chant at this point. After all, who's still blaming the former Clinton administration for virtually everything after 5 years of total control over the executive and legislative branches of the federal government?

I give up. Who?

LFMAO! Best line of the week!

 

[shuamort]

To answer the question that I made bold in your post, that is where the judges and juries come into the picture. That's their job to decide. That particular power belongs in the courts, NOT in the legislature.

That is the sort of thing that needs to be decided on a case by case basis by someone who knows the facts of the case, not by someone behind a desk in Washington who is only considering the "big picture", and not taking any time at all to consider the needs, suffering, or toll taken on the actual individuals involved.

And there's a part where we splinter. It's legislature's job to decide what the law is and what the penalty for breaking the law is. Take a look at a speeding ticket for instance. The fines are pre-determined and set by the legislature and not the court system. Should a person get a speeding ticket and choose to appeal, a court can the reduce, but not increase, the fine.

You want tort reform, how about defining a clear standard for what a "frivolous" lawsuit is, then use that standard to invoke HARSH punishments for those that abuse the court system for personal gain?

You mean like the McDonald's coffee incident? Or the recent Netflix class action debacle?

Ignoring those, however, still doesn't address the question. Let's say you have gangrene in your left leg and it has to be amputated. The doctor comes in and amputates your right leg by mistake. Now you're legless. What should be your cash reward for this accident that aren't related to medical bills and loss of employment? $5.00? $50,000.00? $5,000,000.00? These rewards are above and beyond what would consider being "made whole again" which is the purpose of these cases. Or at least, what they should be.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Souds more like a Republican chant at this point. After all, who's still blaming the former Clinton administration for virtually everything after 5 years of total control over the executive and legislative branches of the federal government?

Back to the point now... If you buy a product that is supposed to do something to benefit you, but instead it causes you to go blind, you're not going to sue the company that sold you the product? I seriously doubt that you'd just shrug it off and say "Oh, well." It is easy for you to sit back on the sidelines and push for capped rewards, but if it was actually YOU who suffered an injury, or lost a family member as a result of a company's negligence, I'm willing to bet you'd have a swift change of heart.

Don't tell me what the fuk my change of heart would be. I have gone through this first hand with a 7 year old girl who's hand is physically deformed due to a doctors screw up. I don't recall saying that everything should be capped. I believe I said that judges should start throwing out the bulshit cases. There should be stiff penalties levied against anyone filing a bullshit law suit. Lawyers, when not in hell honning there craft should stop ambulance chasing and filing theose lawsuits. I think complete tort reform is a licsence for companies and doctors to walk away from there mistakes.

 

[Iriemon]

I agree there should be tort reform. Neither side is willing to make a reasonable compromise. The consumer/lawyer lobby is not willing to compromise on any limitation on what a jury can award. The business side wants mandatory caps, regardless of the amount of injury suffered.

IMO, folks who are injured by defective products should be compensated for the injuries they suffered, including loss wages. However, "non-economic" damages like pain and suffering, loss of consortium, mental anguish, etc., while they represent real injury, do not compensant for financial loss, are impossible to quantify, and these are areas where jury awards can be get out of control. IMO caps on these types of damages should be imposed.

Punitive damages are not designed to compensate the victim, but punish the company for malicious behavior. These awards are penalties, and IMO a large percentage of these damages should be awarded to the state (some percentage should go to the victim/lawyer as incentive to pursue them).

Attorney's fees are necessary to provide incentive for lawyers to take a case. At some level, they become so large that they are no longer necessary for incentive but become a windfall. IMO there should be a sliding scale as to the percentage that the lawyer can retain. E.g. 40% (standard contingency fee) to $ 1 million, 30% to $2 million, 20% to $5 million, 10%above that, or something along those lines.

"Strict liability" is imposed if a product is "defective." The rationale behind this is that if a product causes injury to someone because it does not work like it is supposed to, it makes more sense that the company selling the product bear the cost of the injury as opposed to the injured consumer. The reasons behind this theory is that 1) companies can afford it better than the consumer, 2) the possibility of such costs provides incentives for companies to make safe products. Without this rule, if companies were not liable for their defective products, they would have little incentive to create safe products.

There is no doubt that these legal rules have made products we use much safer than they would be otherwise.

 

[cnredd]

Let's say you have gangrene in your left leg and it has to be amputated. The doctor comes in and amputates your right leg by mistake. Now you're legless. What should be your cash reward for this accident that aren't related to medical bills and loss of employment? $5.00? $50,000.00? $5,000,000.00? These rewards are above and beyond what would consider being "made whole again" which is the purpose of these cases. Or at least, what they should be.

The guy shouldn't be able to sue...

He doesn't have a leg to stand on!(rimshot!)...:2wave:

Thank you!...I'll be here all weekend....

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I agree there should be tort reform. Neither side is willing to make a reasonable compromise. The consumer/lawyer lobby is not willing to compromise on any limitation on what a jury can award. The business side wants mandatory caps, regardless of the amount of injury suffered.

IMO, folks who are injured by defective products should be compensated for the injuries they suffered, including loss wages. However, "non-economic" damages like pain and suffering, loss of consortium, mental anguish, etc., while they represent real injury, do not compensant for financial loss, are impossible to quantify, and these are areas where jury awards can be get out of control. IMO caps on these types of damages should be imposed.

Guess children are pretty much screwed since they have no earning history...
And what about malpractice? Who gets payed on that?

Punitive damages are not designed to compensate the victim, but punish the company for malicious behavior. These awards are penalties, and IMO a large percentage of these damages should be awarded to the state (some percentage should go to the victim/lawyer as incentive to pursue them).

What do you mean awarded to the state? If I am hurt due to a faulty injury and must carry this injury for the rest of my life, exactly why is the state getting money? Is tis just a free windfall for them wen it's citizens get hurt. Whats there incentive for wanting manufacturers to produce safer goods...lol

Attorney's fees are necessary to provide incentive for lawyers to take a case. At some level, they become so large that they are no longer necessary for incentive but become a windfall. IMO there should be a sliding scale as to the percentage that the lawyer can retain. E.g. 40% (standard contingency fee) to $ 1 million, 30% to $2 million, 20% to $5 million, 10%above that, or something along those lines.

They get 30% of the settlement plus legal fees, least in PA that is.... I am sure though it might differ slightly from case to case and the circumstances.

"Strict liability" is imposed if a product is "defective." The rationale behind this is that if a product causes injury to someone because it does not work like it is supposed to, it makes more sense that the company selling the product bear the cost of the injury as opposed to the injured consumer. The reasons behind this theory is that 1) companies can afford it better than the consumer, 2) the possibility of such costs provides incentives for companies to make safe products. Without this rule, if companies were not liable for their defective products, they would have little incentive to create safe products.

There is no doubt that these legal rules have made products we use much safer than they would be otherwise.

You covered product defectivness, but i think most of these suits are probably mal practice

 

[Iriemon]

Guess children are pretty much screwed since they have no earning history...
And what about malpractice? Who gets payed on that?

What do you mean? If it is medical malpractice, the injured party. If it is professional malpractice, it is the person who loses economic damages.

What do you mean awarded to the state? If I am hurt due to a faulty injury and must carry this injury for the rest of my life, exactly why is the state getting money? Is tis just a free windfall for them wen it's citizens get hurt. Whats there incentive for wanting manufacturers to produce safer goods...lol

You should be compensated for your injuries. Compensatory damages do that. Punitive damages are not meant to compensate. They are meant to punish and deter. Why should you get a windfall just because the company is being punished? You could call any fine a windfall for the state if you want to look at it that way. There is still an incentive on manufacturers, but punitive damages are not implicated to make the product safer but to deter illegal or intentionally malicious activity.

You covered product defectivness, but i think most of these suits are probably mal practice

Malpractice involves suits against professionals, doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. Product liability covers injuries from products, from cars to drugs. I don't have the stats as to how many suits are filed in either category, but my guess would be there are more in the latter category.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

What do you mean? If it is medical malpractice, the injured party. If it is professional malpractice, it is the person who loses economic damages.



You should be compensated for your injuries. Compensatory damages do that. Punitive damages are not meant to compensate. They are meant to punish and deter. Why should you get a windfall just because the company is being punished? You could call any fine a windfall for the state if you want to look at it that way. There is still an incentive on manufacturers, but punitive damages are not implicated to make the product safer but to deter illegal or intentionally malicious activity.




Malpractice involves suits against professionals, doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. Product liability covers injuries from products, from cars to drugs. I don't have the stats as to how many suits are filed in either category, but my guess would be there are more in the latter category.

Your carrying that scar, loss, disfigurment etc etc etc for life. Damages should be awarded to the injured. They ar ethe ones that have to live with the problem and the sacrifices for the rest of there lives.

So pain and suffering is not quantifiable so there should be no payment? Again what about kids? No work history no pay history.

A child loses a extremity due to the direct negligence of a doctor? What should this child be entitled to?

A product disfigures a child for life. What is this child entitled to?

 

[Iriemon]

Your carrying that scar, loss, disfigurment etc etc etc for life. Damages should be awarded to the injured. They ar ethe ones that have to live with the problem and the sacrifices for the rest of there lives.
So pain and suffering is not quantifiable so there should be no payment? Again what about kids? No work history no pay history. A child loses a extremity due to the direct negligence of a doctor? What should this child be entitled to? A product disfigures a child for life. What is this child entitled to?

I did not say "no" noneconomic damages should be awarded, I said it should be capped, maybe $500k.

In your example, if a kid is injured so that he or she cannot be expected to work for their entire lives, economic damages would include the cost of support for the life of the person. The issues with scare and extremities I agree are sad cases. If the scares can be surgically corrected that is a compensable medical cost. For things that cannot be corrected, but if the disfigurement cannot be corrected, awarding $5 million for P&S isn't going to make it any better.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I did not say "no" noneconomic damages should be awarded, I said it should be capped, maybe $500k.

In your example, if a kid is injured so that he or she cannot be expected to work for their entire lives, economic damages would include the cost of support for the life of the person. The issues with scare and extremities I agree are sad cases. If the scares can be surgically corrected that is a compensable medical cost. For things that cannot be corrected, but if the disfigurement cannot be corrected, awarding $5 million for P&S isn't going to make it any better.

Wanna Bet!!!

 

[LaMidRighter]

You want tort reform, how about defining a clear standard for what a "frivolous" lawsuit is, then use that standard to invoke HARSH punishments for those that abuse the court system for personal gain?

I think the definition would be pretty easy. All you would need is a clear standard to define where liability ends on the good or service provider, such standards are already in place but not always used, such as malice, negligence, incompetence, malpractice, etc. If a company knows about a serious design flaw that could result in injury or death and releases a product anyway, then they most certainly should be taken to court, however, when someone is injured due to their own actions or misuse of a product they should not have any legal recourse(the McDonald's coffee incident was brought up, but it is appropriate)
- As far as a punishment for abuse of civil court privileges, the best idea I heard was a loser pays system, if a lawsuit is determined to be frivolous, both the plaintiff and their lawyer would owe court costs and the other attorney's fee, as well, they could possibly be subject to a countersuit for any damage to reputation or lost income due to the frivolous abuse. In a case that has merit, no penalty would be incurred on the plaintiff.

I think everyone may get a kick out of this site:
http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/StupidLawsuit.htm

 

[debate_junkie]

It's more than just all of the lawsuits, it's the ridiculously high awards that come out of these cases.

Bush Pushes For Tort Reform


I work for an insurance company and we used to insure doctors/hospitals/clinics. Used to. The cost for medical malpractice lawsuits turned a formerly profitable form of insurance into something that would've bankrupted us if we didn't get out. The reason? Huge awards given for med mal lawsuits. The democrats that say that the number of drs in Illinois has risen. That may be the case, but states like Louisiana, Tennessee and Mississippi come to mind as I think back about all of the doctors I talked with who had to close up shop after we stopped insuring them. Why? Because they couldn't afford med mal insurance anymore. Some of them were doctors who had never had a claim against them, but just couldn't afford to live and practice in those states without insurance (and you have to have insurance to practice).

Up until recently, Pennsylvania was on that list. Malpractice insurance exceeded a million dollars for doctors, and a good chunk of Central PA doctors packed up and moved to Maryland. My aunt, a general practice physician, contemplated moving her practice and her family out of state, when she was faced with either paying her malpractice insurance, or sending her daughter to college. Luckily for her, a group of doctors banded together, and now they're self insured. They no longer pay their malpractice insurance payments to an insurance company... it goes into a special fund account, and god forbid, any malpractice suits, they will deal with it themselves.