# Frivolous Lawsuits.



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 8, 2004)

There has been some expressed interest in the idea of frivolous lawsuits in our society.

What do people think?  Are our high malpractice insurance rates the fault of the insurance companies, the courts, or the doctors who injure and kill people through negligence?

Are the claims that we're a litigious society overblown?  Or not?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Baytor (Jul 8, 2004)

I think that we have become an litigious society.  People seem less willing to compromise and work things out.  In my opinion, people are (in general) no longer willing to take responisbility for their own actions.  I think the Mcdonnalds lawsuit is a perfect example.  

As far as fault goes, maybe we are all at fault for not making tort (civil lawsuits) reform a priority with our elected officials.  Maybe the courts need to throw out more cases, and maybe attourneys need to stop taking foolish cases.  Maybe as a society we need to start telling people "tough luck pal, chalk that up to experience."

:asian:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 8, 2004)

I'm glad you started another thread, I find this question perplexing.

I feel that some lawsuits are indeed frivolous, but if they are truly so, the presiding judge should decide that and fine, etc., the plantiff(s).

I feel that the reason we might perceive some as "frivolous" is because actually they are huge settlements.

I have 2 feelings about huge settlements.  1) These are huge numbers.  Will $1 million or $10 million dollars be more effective in paying the plantiffs for their pain and suffering, loss of life or limb?

2) Some coporations (here I am particularly thinking of the cigarrette industry) are so wealthy that only huge settlements will essentially get their serious attention, and be a real punishment, rather than a slap on the wrist.  

In the great tradition of dealing with grey areas, I think it depends on the case and the ruling.  Some have been excessive.  Some were what seems to be excessive to an individual private citizen, but may have been completely appropriate to getting the attention of the corporation.


----------



## Kevin Walker (Jul 8, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> There has been some expressed interest in the idea of frivolous lawsuits in our society.
> 
> What do people think? Are our high malpractice insurance rates the fault of the insurance companies, the courts, or the doctors who injure and kill people through negligence?
> 
> ...


I think our age of litigation is all the fault of the courts and lawyers.  The court system demands that citizens never take issues into their own hands, so citizens have no recourse but to go to court.  

Outside of busting a guy's head, what else can I do but constantly go to court?  Yet the court system now labels a lawsuit as frivolous if it isn't spectacular enough for their merit.  A lawsuit over a punch in the mouth can be deemed as frivolous.

It is over both litigation and taxes as the reasons for me not starting my own business or running a full-time dojo.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 8, 2004)

IamBaytor said:
			
		

> I think that we have become an litigious society.  People seem less willing to compromise and work things out.  In my opinion, people are (in general) no longer willing to take responisbility for their own actions.  I think the Mcdonnalds lawsuit is a perfect example.
> 
> As far as fault goes, maybe we are all at fault for not making tort (civil lawsuits) reform a priority with our elected officials.  Maybe the courts need to throw out more cases, and maybe attourneys need to stop taking foolish cases.  Maybe as a society we need to start telling people "tough luck pal, chalk that up to experience."
> 
> :asian:




Which McDonald's lawsuit are you referring to?  The one where the man was suing due to his obesity, or the one where the woman was burned by the coffee?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 8, 2004)

Many years ago, a female friend of mine was going into Massachusetts General Hospital for some minor gynecological surgery. This is quite possibly the best hospital in the world. 

She was brought to the operating room and anesthetized. When she woke up a day later, she had third degree burns up and down the back of her leg. She spent the next 8 weeks in the hospital. To this day, she has scars on her backside and the backs of her legs. A portion of the muscle tissue in her thigh has never grown back.

Fortuneately, she was able to conceive a child after the accident, although, that was in doubt until it actually happened.

Was this lawsuit "fivolous"? 

Where is the distinction between "frivolous" and "not frivolous"? and who gets to decide?

Mike


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 8, 2004)

A Frivolous Lawsuit is the following:

I was living(Renting) in a townhouse. The mainenance man was entering the houses, including ours, without our permission in particular after I left for work and the (ex)wife was getting ready for work. The local managemenr would do nothing about it. Their main office would do nothing about it. We moved out, with one month left on the lease. They brought a lawsuit against us, for the one month of rent, and damages. It took a year, and the judge finally insisted we go to trial, their lawyer was stalling, I had been ready with pictures and everything. The lawyer had to withdraw from our case as the management would not give him enough to go forward on. He had filed the mandatory removal forms to all parties, and the management did not have a new lawyer present. The judge asked if it was all cases or just this one? The lawyer replied just this one. The lawyer then made a motion to allow for a delay until the management could get representation. I objected. The judge smiled, and said, what were my objections. I stated that they had the mandatory two weeks as requried by law to get new representation. They also are maintaining this lawyer for all their other cases today. They obviously were afraid I would counter sue.  The judge asked, Did You? No your Honor I did not wish to waste yours and the courts time for a couple hundred dollars of my deposit money. The judge looked at the total amount of money involved, and was visable upset. He said, we ahve been arguing and delaying for a year for less than $300 for either side, and one side has not counter filed? Case dismissed, and tell your management that I am dissatisfied with you and them today. None of their cases went well that day.

That was Frivolous, at least in my mind.

 :asian:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 8, 2004)

*minor thread gank*

Rich, I'm glad you did something about that.  I've been in that situation TWICE now.  Especially as a single woman, I am REALLY disturbed (and pissed off) when management enters my apartment without telling me a) they will be there b) they were there.  

Just a couple of weeks ago I found out that maintenance guys were here by the toilet seat up and the toilet full of pee in my bathroom.  Classy, is all I have to say.

Not as bad as the previous place, where they would come in, tour people through my apartment without warning or telling me, and leave the door unlocked for me to get home, wonder who was there, wonder if it was safe to go in and call the police.  This is the biggest (I think) rental agency in town.

*end cathartic rant gank*


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 8, 2004)

Maybe what we think are frivolous cases are those that (as someone stated) should have been prevented or dismissed on common sense. Kinda like going after the gun manufacturers for the cost of gun crimes.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 8, 2004)

I think we are a society that is out for the "quick buck" fron the stupid lawsuit.

Recently, I went into a theater and sat down, the seat broke out of the bracket that held it into the floor, and dumped me into the row behind me.  Embarassing? Sure! (Especially because I was on a blind date) But I felt the chair break in time to grab the arms of the chair behind me as I went over backwards and hold myself above the seat, so I didnt crash into the broken scraps of chair under me.  SO I was not injured.  I reported it to theater management, and they removed the chair.  

Almost everyone I told the story to encouraged me to sue the theater.  I did not.  But I could not believe the number of people who suggested I should, on the grounds of "Mental Anguish"  :idunno:


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 8, 2004)

Just one word:  lawyers.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 9, 2004)

I just love it when those who espouse pure capitalism complain when people try to make money by all means necessary.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 9, 2004)

I'm not sure our picture of litigation always reflects reality.  Often we hear about the "big bucks" awards, but rarely do we note that they are quite rare.  We also note those large awards that are ludicrous...like the woman who was awarded tens of thousands of dollars when an MRI (or CAT scan, I can't recall) allegedly robbed her of her "psychic powers."  

What we sometimes fail to hear, however, is the rest of the story.  In the case above, the award was overturned in a higher court.

Many cite the McDonald's coffee burning case as frivolous.  Again, a deeper examination finds the eigthy plus year old woman in question received third degree burns to her groin and thighs.  I suspect that such trauma could have killed a woman her age.  When McDonalds offered her a pittance in compensation that wouldn't cover the skin grafts and hospitalization she required, she took them on.

Her case was preceded by no less than 700 other instances wherein McDonald's coffee had injured people...so the company was quite aware that their temperature settings on coffee were dangerous.  Do a "Google" search for more on this and you'll find the details.  Bottom line as far as many see it:  Coffee is a beverage that shouldn't maim you upon spilling it.

Two years ago a nine year old boy I knew died following adenoid surgery.  He had been given too much codeine by an attending physician, and it killed him.  I believe the parents settled out of court, but surely one couldn't blame them for suing had they elected to.


Point:  There ARE abuses...and we always note them.  We sometimes forget those instances where litigation brings positive change, if not justice, to those injured.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 9, 2004)

Well, no offense, but coffee IS hot.

You're right, many of these lawsuits are overturned, or the awards reduced.  But the process itself is VERY EXPENSIVE, even if the lawsuit is thrown out or the plaintiff loses.  And you have to add in the cost of all the "cover your butt" activity to reduce the likelihood of being sued for no good reason.

I think, unfortunately, Americans are increasingly refusing to take responsibility for their own stupidity.  I wouldn't put a hot cup of coffee between my legs.  I'd use a cup-holder.


----------



## Baytor (Jul 9, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Which McDonald's lawsuit are you referring to? The one where the man was suing due to his obesity, or the one where the woman was burned by the coffee?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> ...


I was talking about the obesity lawsuits.  I remember seeing an interview with the guy, and his main point was that he thought that since it was 100% ground beef, it was healthy.

_"I think, unfortunately, Americans are increasingly refusing to take responsibility for their own stupidity"  -_Phoenix44

I agree.  
_:asian: _


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 9, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Well, no offense, but coffee IS hot.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think, unfortunately, Americans are increasingly refusing to take responsibility for their own stupidity.  I wouldn't put a hot cup of coffee between my legs.  I'd use a cup-holder.




True, coffee is supposed to be hot.  But not THAT hot.  

Ever had a lid pop off when the cup is handed to you?  Ever just spill a little bit and the reflexive jerk from the burn causes you to spill more?  I've had defective cups crush in my hands, had my thumb punch through the side...and I wasn't squeezing tightly.  In Borders I had a handle spontaneously fall off a cup, spilling much of it on me (and wasn't burned because of its lower temperature).  I've been jostled while carrying "to go cups" spilling the contents on me and others.  While driving I've hit potholes, While walking I've slipped on  black ice, spilling it.  I even had one of those automatic shoulder harnesses dump a cup in my lap when it swung up into place (this was funny, and I wasn't hurt...it was cool enough as it was home brewed...I only received first degree burns).  

Even when one is careful, stuff happens.

One shouldn't have a cup full of potential agony handed to them when they go into a fast food store.  The product you receive shouldn't be dangerous.  That woman, at worst, should have received a first degree burn to her lap.

This woman received third degree burns.  Her skin was destoyed by this liquid.  I will write that again for emphasis.  _Her skin was destroyed by this liquid._ 

Nobody can drink coffee that hot.  Your lips, tongue and esophagus aren't invulnerable to such heat.  One has to let it cool.  Serve it cooler and the customer gets to drink it sooner and without risk of injury.  

There is absolutely no excuse for McDonald's having their coffee at such a temperature.  Would anyone allow their child to have a cup of hot chocolate that could potentially scar them for life?

I will agree that many in our country refuse to accept personal responsibility for their actions.  The incident of the man suing McDonald's for his obesity is a perfect case in point, and I've listed one other case...but the issue of one company's scalding coffee injuring over 700 people  _before_  they take corrective action doesn't fall into that category.  

Not by a long shot.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## qizmoduis (Jul 9, 2004)

Yes, the whole point of the McD's coffee suit wasn't the fact that the coffee spilled and was hot.  It was that the lady involved recieved THIRD DEGREE BURNS from it.  No drink needs to be that hot.  Third degree burns are very serious.  This is not a good example of a frivolous lawsuit, in my opinion.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 9, 2004)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> .  It was that the lady involved recieved THIRD DEGREE BURNS from it.  No drink needs to be that hot.



Yes, actually I read that McDonalds was warned several times by the Health department to lower the temp on their coffee and they refused.

I think if you are AWARE of a danger, and ignore it... and someone gets hurt and sues... that would not be a frivolous lawsuit.


----------



## Melissa426 (Jul 9, 2004)

Honest real life story.  Happened about two weeks ago to friends of mine.

Two women, Lisa and Lori, went to a fast food restaurant.  Between them, they have 5 kids.   Lisa's 8 month old baby was sitting in a high chair.  Lori was making a bottle for her 5 month old, when a teenage employee walked by and offered to bring Lori some hot water for the baby's bottle.  Lisa was getting the other kids' meals together when the fast food employee walked back with a cup of hot water and set it on the tray of  the high chair.  

The 8 month old, like any baby that age, reached out and grabbed the cup.  Hot water spilled down his abdomen and left thigh.  He was hospitalized for a week with third degree burns, eventually requiring skin grafts to his thigh. Baby is now doing well, although he will require physical therapy and who knows what else in the future.  

Assuming the fast food restaurant agrees to pay all his medical bills, should Lisa and her husband sue?
Would it make a difference if I told you Lisa's husband is a doctor and they are fairly well to do?

I haven't asked Lisa anything about this case because I figure it's none of my business and if she wants to tell me, she will.  I don't have an answer to either question either.  I think that is something that would have to happen to me before I could say what I would do.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 9, 2004)

OK, you don't like the McD coffee case.  How about this one:

After being burglarized once too many times, an Illinois bar owner booby-traps his window, and posts a sign telling any future burglars that the window is booby-trapped.  Needless to say, some genius decides to burglarize the bar anyway, and is promptly blown to smithereens.  Apparently, in Illinois, it's not illegal to booby-trap your window.  BUT the genius' family filed a civil suit for wrongful death...and won.


----------



## Shu2jack (Jul 9, 2004)

> After being burglarized once too many times, an Illinois bar owner booby-traps his window, and posts a sign telling any future burglars that the window is booby-trapped. Needless to say, some genius decides to burglarize the bar anyway, and is promptly blown to smithereens. Apparently, in Illinois, it's not illegal to booby-trap your window. BUT the genius' family filed a civil suit for wrongful death...and won.


 
Wrongful death? How? The traps were designed to kill *******s.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 9, 2004)

Got a reference for that?    That would be nice.

Here's an article from Snopes.com that lists several urban myths regarding tort litigation.  It also lists several REAL settlements that were ridiculous...and later overturned.

http://snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

Here's an interesting article regarding tort reform wherein it lists reformers who themselves haven't hesitated to sue:  Notably Rick Santorum, whose wife sued a chiropracter for $500,000.  Four years earlier Santorum had voted for caps on awards limiting them to a quarter million.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/4286

Here's an article that lays the blame for excessive malpractice insurance rates on the insurance industry...which raise rates regardless of award caps:

http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/003710.html



You never commented on the situation with the nine year old, Phoenix44.  What's your take on that?



Regards,


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 10, 2004)

Okay...no references?  I'll provide something.

A forum discussion elsewhere over this topic:

http://www.plastic.com/article.html?sid=03/02/26/02062518;cmt=82

Some excellent points observed here, namely that the crime of burglary doesn't merit death and the trap as set was lethal.  The bar owner wasn't present, his life wasn't in danger, and lethal force wasn't warranted.  The fact that signs were posted is irrelevant, and does not release the bar owner from having created a dangerous and unwarranted situation.  

This isn't the same as a kid who climbs a powerline tower and doesn't heed the signs warning of dangerous electricity.  One could argue the property in question, though dangerous, was designed to a higher purpose and served a greater social function.

Some of the articles I read have commented "since Illinois doesn't care if you use lethal force to defend your home or business, no charges were filed."  No charges were filed because the bar owner wasn't there to personally do the killing.  The warning signs would absolve him of an intent to commit a lethal crime.  This was clearly a tort case.

There are some counter arguments as well.  I'd love to know the precedents leading up to this, the intricacies of Illinois tort law, and see something a little more in-depth rather than just articles and commentary.  I haven't found a web site that discusses the case in detail, analyzing both sides of the argument.  



What about that nine year old who was killed by his doctor's negligence, Phoenix44?

Still waiting on that one.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Mark Weiser (Jul 10, 2004)

If the facts are correct in the story. The Mother does have a case due to the lack of responsiblity of the employee by placing the dangerous item(Hot Water) within reach of the child.

Employeers have certain legal responsiblities to the public well being one is for a safe and clean and healthy enviroment. Since this was a public restaraunt and the employee either did not pay attention to the potential danger or did not care which is possible knowing some of the kids running loose behind the counters at our local fast food establishments.

Tort laws are there for a reason and I think this case if true should be taken to court if for no other reason to teach the employee to treat other human beings with the required compassion and care. I think she or he can sue both McD's and the employee. 

If I am correct with a civil judgement even if employee files for Bankruptcy he or she will still have to pay. 

Sincerely,
Mark E. Weiser


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 10, 2004)

Here is a helpful overview of tort law, replete with definitions and categories.  I found it illuminating.

http://www.eriskcenter.org/knowledge/normac/liability.html


One must remember that tort law extends into other areas.  The Ford Pinto, an incredibly unsafe vehicle, was the cause of a class action suit brought by femily members of victims who had been killed by the Pinto's fragile and ill-placed gas tank.  The Pinto could have been made safely, but the company elected to save money.

Tort law, for all its abuses, can drive an industry towards making products and machinery safer for consumers/users.  The McDonald's coffee case brought the temperatures down not only in every McD's, but in many other restaurants as well.  


Regards.


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 10, 2004)

Thanks for the links and posts, Steve.  

I think that sometimes key cases can morph into urban legends and people forget the key parts of the cases.  A case could become a story about stupid people spilling coffee on themselves, rather than the fact than no-one should be selling customers liquids that can cause 3rd degree burns.  

Our justice system isn't perfect, of course.  (I won't get started on the death penalty and the innocent people who have been put to death.)  But sometimes the only way to force a company to take responsibility (as with the case of the Ford Pinto) is to sue, and fine them big $$$$.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 10, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> You never commented on the situation with the nine year old, Phoenix44. What's your take on that?


Well, it's thin on details, but there are big differences between this case and some of the others mentioned.  For one thing, it involves a kid, who is not expected to bear any responsibility for his own medical care, so somebody else is at fault.  It could be the doctor, pharmacy, hospital, or his parents...but not the kid.  If the doctor wrote the wrong prescription, and the parent administered the prescribed dose, and the kid died of an overdose, then the doctor's at fault.  The legal term that applies, I think, is "res ipsa loquitor," meaning "the thing speaks for itself."

(This would be different, BTW, if the 9-year old rode his bike out in front of a truck and got killed, because there, the "fault" might be attributed to the kid, resulting in a defendant's decision.  Because a "reasonable person" knows that kids sometimes DO ride their bikes in front of trucks, and it may be too late for the truck to stop.)

So this case may be a case of medical negligence.  But what doctors are up in arms about is NOT that medical negligence exists, but that the NON-economic awards have become astronomical.  Doctors want the NON-economic awards capped at $250,000.  That would be IN ADDITION to compensating the plaintiff for the actual and projected costs of the injury.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 11, 2004)

old joke....

what do you call 10,000 at the bottom of the ocean?
a good start.......


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 16, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Well, it's thin on details...
> 
> So this case may be a case of medical negligence.  But what doctors are up in arms about is NOT that medical negligence exists, but that the NON-economic awards have become astronomical.  Doctors want the NON-economic awards capped at $250,000.  That would be IN ADDITION to compensating the plaintiff for the actual and projected costs of the injury.




Sorry...I thought I posted the fact that the physician mistakenly gave him a lethal dose of codeine.  As I said, I knew the boy.  

According to sources below awards caps HAVE been instituted regarding malpractice suits in California...and malpractice insurance rates continue to go through the roof.  Why?  Doctors have to have the insurance...so the insurance companies are taking advantage of the situation and ripping the doctors off.  Malpractice claims have flatlined since the eighties...but the rates still go up.

http://www.insurance-reform.org/StableLosses.pdf

and

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/medmal.php

To be fair, the GAO doesn't seem to agree with either of these:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03702.pdf


ON ANOTHER NOTE:

Just saw Morgan Spurlock's "Supersize Me", which was a very good documentary that covered, in part, the obesity lawsuits leveled at McDonald's.  It was mostly a damning expose of the food industry, our eating habits, big business marketing, and our lifestyle decline.  For those that have read "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser, this is a "must see" film.  That too if you have weight problems or are a health food junkie.  Or a junk food junkie.

As a part of this documentary Spurlock ate nothing but McDonald's for a month...gained twenty five pounds...his liver enzymes went dangerously high, his cholesterol doubled, his blood pressure went to 155/something, he lost his libido, he got depressed, and showed signs of addiction to the food.  He ate as much fast food in a month as most nutritionists recommend one eat in eight years.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 16, 2004)

I have another item to bring to point here. It concerns one of John Edwards lawsuits from the end of his courtroom years; and how a pretty respectable Republican media personality presented it. 

Until yesterday, I was not aware of this story ... and certainly, Charlie Pierce tells it better than I could. I hope you will forgive the lengthy post.

This article, and a follow up may be found at: http://www.altercation.msnbc.com 
Be sure to look for the dates July 15 - July 16, 2004

Mike



> In 1994, an eight-year old girl named Valerie Lakey was playing in a wading pool. She got caught in a defective drain. Her intestines were ripped from her body by the suction. She is now 17. She will have to be fed through a tube, 12 hours a day, for the rest of her life. In 1997, John Edwards won her family a $25 million judgment, of which he took a portion. The judgment helped jump-start his political career.
> 
> On the first day of last year, as part of his opening comments on Crossfire, this is how the incident was described by Tucker Carlson, whom public and private broadcasting networks tumble all over themselves to hire: "Four years ago, he (Edwards) was a personal-injury lawyer specializing in Jacuzzi cases."
> 
> ...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 16, 2004)

I remember that case!  I think many people do.  Horrific.

I didn't know Edwards was the lawyer.  



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 16, 2004)

Holy...!  What a horrible thing to have happened.  That poor girl.  I'm amazed she survived.  Oh....


----------



## hkg (Aug 1, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I think we are a society that is out for the "quick buck" fron the stupid lawsuit.
> 
> Recently, I went into a theater and sat down, the seat broke out of the bracket that held it into the floor, and dumped me into the row behind me.  Embarassing? Sure! (Especially because I was on a blind date) But I felt the chair break in time to grab the arms of the chair behind me as I went over backwards and hold myself above the seat, so I didnt crash into the broken scraps of chair under me.  SO I was not injured.  I reported it to theater management, and they removed the chair.
> 
> Almost everyone I told the story to encouraged me to sue the theater.  I did not.  But I could not believe the number of people who suggested I should, on the grounds of "Mental Anguish"  :idunno:



This is definetly the view conveyed over here in britain about america amean fair enough it shouldnt of happened but in the end it was just an accident. It seems alot of americans are not willin to take responscebility for themselves but instead immediately look to blame someone else, im not paintin all americans with the same brush but that is the general consences over here.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 1, 2004)

One of the issues in medical liability is a proposed cap on monetary damages awarded for "pain and suffering."  Bear in mind that this has nothing to do with actual financial damages:  if you incur $1,000,000 in current and future medical expenses, or if your career is ruined so you lose $750,000 in future earnings because of someone's negligence, this is NOT what I'm talking about.  The "pain and suffering" damages are awarded ON TOP of the $1,750,000 you'd be awarded for actual financial loss.

Doctors' organizations and liability insurers have proposed a $250,000 cap on "pain and suffering" awards.  As is, juries award MILLIONS for "pain and suffering."  There's no argument with awarding the actual financial loss, but the proponents of this idea say that a $250,000 cap on the additional award would go a long way to solving the medical liability crisis. 

What do you think about this?


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 1, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> One of the issues in medical liability is a proposed cap on monetary damages awarded for "pain and suffering." Bear in mind that this has nothing to do with actual financial damages: if you incur $1,000,000 in current and future medical expenses, or if your career is ruined so you lose $750,000 in future earnings because of someone's negligence, this is NOT what I'm talking about. The "pain and suffering" damages are awarded ON TOP of the $1,750,000 you'd be awarded for actual financial loss.
> 
> Doctors' organizations and liability insurers have proposed a $250,000 cap on "pain and suffering" awards. As is, juries award MILLIONS for "pain and suffering." There's no argument with awarding the actual financial loss, but the proponents of this idea say that a $250,000 cap on the additional award would go a long way to solving the medical liability crisis.
> 
> What do you think about this?


It is the beginning of a conversation. The idea makes sense, I am not sure that the amount does, however. One of the challenges in such cases, is to determine the unknowable ... the actual financial loss. 

Sure, we know our wages at the time of an incident. We know what our past medical expenses are, but what is in the future is unknowable. So, the actuaries break out some statistical tables. But that unknowable future is so important when considering a settlement or award. 

Certainly an $170 Million dollar judgement is extreme ... but isn't $250,000 extreme on the other end?

Mike


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 1, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Certainly an $170 Million dollar judgement is extreme ... but isn't $250,000 extreme on the other end? Mike


Not for "pain and suffering."  

As I mentioned, actual financial damages are determined by actuarial tables.  "Pain and suffering" is calculated by the whim of the jury.  Who's to say if you've suffered $250K worth?  Maybe you only suffered $1 worth.  And how much money will alleviate your pain and suffering anyway?


----------



## Melissa426 (Aug 1, 2004)

hkg said:
			
		

> This is definetly the view conveyed over here in britain about america amean fair enough it shouldnt of happened but in the end it was just an accident. It seems alot of americans are not willin to take responscebility for themselves but instead immediately look to blame someone else, im not paintin all americans with the same brush but that is the general consences over here.


I don't think it's just Britain... I think it's the rest of the world, too. 

How many lawsuits in Britain over people getting  mad cow disease, or being injured at a soccer riot? 
Anything like that happen in America, there'd lawyers lined up for miles around.

Ok, I am being a little sarcastic, but I hope you get my drift. I think it is important to not always be out to blame someone for accidental misfortune.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 1, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Not for "pain and suffering."
> 
> As I mentioned, actual financial damages are determined by actuarial tables.  "Pain and suffering" is calculated by the whim of the jury.  Who's to say if you've suffered $250K worth?  Maybe you only suffered $1 worth.  And how much money will alleviate your pain and suffering anyway?




Yesterday in the news they mentioned a report released that stated that 200,000 deaths per year in the US are attributable to medical mistakes.  How do you tell a woman who has lost her child that there are limits to her pain?  She'll take that child's loss with her to her grave...ask any mother on this board.   She isn't seeking succor, she's seeking justice and change by initiating a lawsuit in the millions.

Should "pain and suffering" caps be applied, then would they go across the board to lawsuits against other industries?  What incentive then for the industries to make the workplace safer?

How many of these suits draw attention to dangerous practices within an industry and effect positive change?  

The notoriety of the McDonald's coffee suit caused an industry-wide lowering of coffee temperatures.  The obesity lawsuits (as stupid as they were) combined with Morgan Spurlock's "Supersize Me" and Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation" caused McD's to start offering more nutritious fare, end the Supersize option, and start posting nutrional content information for consumers to take home (and they put it on their web site).  Huge awards provide huge incentives to change.  The awards themselves aren't as damaging to the corporation as the bad press the award brings about.  Lawsuits effect sales.

I find it difficult to believe that the momentum of this entire issue isn't driven by the insurance industry's avarice and finger pointing.  They're a strong lobby in Washington, and have contributed heavily to our current President's past and present campaigns.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 1, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Not for "pain and suffering."
> 
> As I mentioned, actual financial damages are determined by actuarial tables. "Pain and suffering" is calculated by the whim of the jury. Who's to say if you've suffered $250K worth? Maybe you only suffered $1 worth. And how much money will alleviate your pain and suffering anyway?


My arguement was partially speaking to the idea that 'Pain & Suffering' is a way to address the uncertainties of the future. Sure, they can calculate future medical expenses .... but if a new treatment is introduced, but much more expensive, the injured party can't necessarily go back to the courts to seek the new medical expenses.... On the other side ... the injured party might get hit by a bus and die without every using the future medical expenses. Who knows.

Mike


----------



## hkg (Aug 2, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> I don't think it's just Britain... I think it's the rest of the world, too.
> 
> How many lawsuits in Britain over people getting  mad cow disease, or being injured at a soccer riot?
> Anything like that happen in America, there'd lawyers lined up for miles around.
> ...



Yeah ur right i cant even remember i lawsuit over either of those things. Its called football over here!!!


----------



## Melissa426 (Aug 2, 2004)

OK, fix this problem and I'll reconsider my position.

Dr. Rural lives in small town in southern Illinois, serving a community of 50,000 people and doing a wonderful job.  Practices excellent, conscientious medicine.

Dr. Bigcity lives in Chicago and  is an extremely busy and overworked pediatrician and serves inner city poor of Chicago.

Dr. Bigcity writes a prescription for Bugacillin for 100.0 milligrams.  Pharmacist has hard time reading the writing, and doesn't realize it is for a child, so instead he gives Bugacillin 1000 milligrams.  Side effect of Bugacillin overdose is visionloss, so child suffers permanent blindness.

Child's parent sues and gets $10,000,000.   ($5 million was for pain and suffering)

Dr. Rural and Bigcity are covered by the same malpractice insurance carrier, Greedy United.  To make up for its losses, Greedy United increases the rates for malpractice for Dr. Bigcity by 100% and Dr. Rural by 10%.

Dr. Bigcity can't afford the malpractice costs, cause innercity pediatricians don't make that much $ relative to other doctors, so he quits and and goes to law school.

Dr. Rural increases his patients' charges to cover his increased costs.  4 small businesses who were providing healthcare to their employees decide they can not afford the higher premiums so they decide to no longer provide healthcare to their employees. 

So now, there are 60 families in rural Illinois who no longer have healthcare insurance. There are countless children in poor neighborhoods in Chicago who don't have ready access to a pediatrician.


Do you still believe we don't need tort reform?


----------



## OULobo (Aug 2, 2004)

It's really just a matter of who gets the door slammed on them along the chain; the patent, the doctor, the insurance agency, the rest of us. Someone is going to get screwed. The justified thing to do would be to screw the person who screwed-up. In this case, I would say the pharmacist. He should've checked with the Doc's office if he couldn't read the script. 

I hear the insurance companies screaming and the Docs screaming for them, but truthfully, I never mind seeing an insurance company getting screwed, and I think they are using tort reform as an excuse to raise rates. They're screwing me every payment, s'bout time they get a taste. I personally think you can cap "pain and suffering" findings, because I don't think the law should have much if any emotional depth in findings. Instead of using money as a motivator for change, how about forcing the change by act of law. If the company practices an unsafe method, fine them any time they are audited randomly and that method is found as still being practiced. Increase the fine at every finding. I'll bet that practice stops pretty quick and other practicers will take notice quick too. The fines simply go to the costs performing the audits and the costs of operation for the auditing agency. This removes any ignoble motivation for suing, like making money off the suit and still forces change in the system.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 2, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> How do you tell a woman who has lost her child that there are limits to her pain? She'll take that child's loss with her to her grave...ask any mother on this board. She isn't seeking succor, she's seeking justice and change by initiating a lawsuit in the millions.


Very good example. Here's a TRUE example: A young mother is pregnant with her first child. She gets her obstetrical care from one of the more highly regarded OB groups in the area, on staff at a well regarded teaching hospital. In the 9th month, the OB's exam suggested that the baby was not presenting head first--it was a breech position, which would probably require a C-section. The OB opted not to do an ultrasound to determine the exact position of the baby, but would wait until the mother went into labor to do the C/S.

A few days after that examination, the woman's water broke while she was minding her business at home. The baby's umbilical cord popped through (umbilical cord prolapse). When this happens, the pressure on the umbilical cord cuts off the blood supply to the baby. It is a true obstetrical emergency. 911 was called, EMS came, a C/S was done. It was too late. The baby was severely brain damaged, had seizures, and died a few days later. It was a normal, full-term baby girl.

If the OB had done an ultrasound, she'd have found that the baby was presenting FEET FIRST. This is called a "double footling breech," which carries a VERY high risk of prolapsed cord. A C/S would have been done immediately--the OB would not have waited for labor. But, the OB did NOT do the ultrasound. Sounds like a case for a lawsuit.

That mother was ME. The baby's father was a NEGLIGENCE ATTORNEY. And we did NOT sue. As my ex put it: "How much money would make you happy?"

Yes, I will take that loss with me to the grave.


----------



## Taimishu (Aug 2, 2004)

Ok I just scalded myself with a cup of tea so as I cannot be at fault Im going to sue the manufacturer of the kettle for making it boils water at 100c. Should boil it cooler. (yeah)

I cut myself when putting a screw in the wall and the screwdriver slipped so not only am I going to sue the maker of the screwdriver but also the local hospital as they made me wait for treatment and the nurse hurt me when she dressed the wound.

Having lived on fast/junk food all my life now that Ive had a heart attack Im going to sue the food companys.

Oh I mustnt forget the tabacco companys for ruining my health.

You know I can see a time when no doctor will work, no food will be prepared/prepacked, no tools made, and dont forget to change the laws of physics to suit us ill-informed members of the public.

The only thing I can think of to stop or slow this down is to 1 admit people as a rule are stupid and 2. shoot all the lawyers. This last may not be practicle but would be a lot of fun.



I just sprained a finger typing this so Im gonna see my solicitor and sue Martial Talk.

The big problem with the fast buck from sueing is WE ALL PAY in the end.



David


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 2, 2004)

Taimishu said:
			
		

> Ok I just scalded myself with a cup of tea so as I cannot be at fault Im going to sue the manufacturer of the kettle for making it boils water at 100c. Should boil it cooler. (yeah)
> 
> I cut myself when putting a screw in the wall and the screwdriver slipped so not only am I going to sue the maker of the screwdriver but also the local hospital as they made me wait for treatment and the nurse hurt me when she dressed the wound.
> 
> ...





Have you not read a single post on this thread, David?


Melissa426...excellent post!


Regards,

Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 2, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Very good example. Here's a TRUE example:
> 
> That mother was ME. The baby's father was a NEGLIGENCE ATTORNEY. And we did NOT sue. As my ex put it: "How much money would make you happy?"
> 
> Yes, I will take that loss with me to the grave.




That was perhaps the most powerful and deeply moving post I've seen on the internet.  I regret your loss.

One can't help but respect your decision not to sue, but other parents might not feel the same way.  As I've pointed out, happiness isn't the goal for some.  No amount of financial compensation can bring happiness after such a tragedy.  I certainly wouldn't argue that.  Beyond medical and care expenses family members often seek justice...some of it out of anger, but much of it to effect change.  

Were it not so, and were there not instances where such justice is needed, we wouldn't need negligence attorneys.  Torts wouldn't exist. 

Much of the issue here is how we define "frivolous".  

I don't argue that there are indeed frivolous suits.  I am reluctant to think that they drive the insurance industry's rate hikes.  I am more inclined to think it likely that justified claims effect social change.  

Frivolous suits and high awards make the news, though.  Its what we remember and what interests and angers us.  We forget those suits that drive an incompetent physician out of practice, or that motivate a company to insure a workplace that won't leave its employees maimed.

Regards,

Steve


----------



## PeachMonkey (Aug 2, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Do you still believe we don't need tort reform?


  Absolutely, for a number of reasons.

  1) The argument you present is completely hypothetical.  A less cordial description might be a "straw man".
 2) It has been demonstrated already that tort reform does *not* stop health insurance companies from raising rates; California is a perfect example of this.
 3) There is a much better solution to poor kiddies not having ready healthcare access: single-payer health insurance. Alternately, fully universal healthcare.

 In the end, we can spend our time worrying about how those poor, pitiful insurance companies and their incompetent clients might actually have to pay for their behavior, or we can focus on the ways in which *we* are actually getting screwed by the upper classes.

 I know how my energies will be spent.


----------



## Taimishu (Aug 3, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Have you not read a single post on this thread, David?
> 
> 
> Melissa426...excellent post!
> ...


Steve ive read every post in this thread and stand by what I wrote.
If something happens that is negligent then sue but not for stupid things which any reasonably inteligent person would know, ie. coffeee is hot, that is imo a waste of time and we all pay as any monetary award is passed on by the company/person involved.
Now as this title of this thread was "frivolous lawsuits" and there have been some very harrowing stories which are definately NOT frivolous and those are most definately not covered by my post. All the others are.

As for the comment about lawyers that was a little on the cynical side but it was America that coined the phrase "ambulance chaser" and with that I rest my case.

To those who have lost someone you have my sympathy, I too have buried a child and it hurts.

David


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 3, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> One can't help but respect your decision not to sue, but other parents might not feel the same way. As I've pointed out, happiness isn't the goal for some. No amount of financial compensation can bring happiness after such a tragedy. I certainly wouldn't argue that. Beyond medical and care expenses family members often seek justice...some of it out of anger, but much of it to effect change.


Recounting this story really got me to thinking about the entire issue. Since we'd had good health insurance, we were not out of pocket for medical expenses--so there was no financial loss (which would have been an entirely different thing). 

Suppose we did sue, for whatever reason. 

Whether the award for "pain and suffering" is $250K or $2.5 million, the decision goes on the doctor's record at the National Practitioners Data Bank. It effects her insurance rate, her employment, hospital privileges, possibly her license, and her ability to attract patients. So you've hit the doctor, which is your intent, right?

Once you've established that the amount of money doesn't affect my happiness, and after you've already affected the doctor's career, then it seems to me that demanding more than $250K is no longer about principle. Now we're just talking about MONEY, right? (or dare I say "greed")

And while neither $250K nor $2.5 million really addresses my pain and suffering, overall, this can make the difference between whether doctors can afford to practice medicine, whether healthcare costs can be managed, and whether we'll even be able to attract qualified people into the medical profession for the future.

So why not cap non-economic damages at $250,000?


----------



## Melissa426 (Aug 3, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Absolutely, for a number of reasons.
> 
> 1) The argument you present is completely hypothetical. A less cordial description might be a "straw man".
> 2) It has been demonstrated already that tort reform does *not* stop health insurance companies from raising rates; California is a perfect example of this.
> ...


 

I respectfully choose to disagree with you.  It is not a purely hypothetical situation.  The facts of the case (which I made up on the spur of the moment) may be arguable, but the consequences are not.
Good physicians are being driven out of business or being forced to relocate to more reasonable states because of ungodly high malpractice premiums.
Try to find an Ob/Gyn in Nevada or Mississippi.  You may have to drive up to 1 to 2 hours to get one.  Want to do that while you're in labor?

As for universal healthcare, my answer is "no, thank you."  There are numerous examples of that (eg, Russia, to name one) and I would not want my healthcare being provided under those conditions.  Medicaid and Medicare are examples of government run health-administration and if you are familiar with either of those, you know I don't need to say more.



Phoenix44.... you have submitted the most elegant response I have ever heard on this issue.  Ever thought about running for office? :asian:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 3, 2004)

> As for universal healthcare, my answer is "no, thank you." There are numerous examples of that (eg, Russia, to name one) and I would not want my healthcare being provided under those conditions.


 universal health care does not equal living under a communist dictatorship - and Medicaid/Medicare are remarkably cheap and help many Americans.  There are other models out there for universal health care that DO work.  Our nation has the money - we are giving it away to corporations who get out of paying taxes.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 3, 2004)

Taimishu said:
			
		

> Steve ive read every post in this thread and stand by what I wrote.
> If something happens that is negligent then sue but not for stupid things which any reasonably inteligent person would know, ie. coffeee is hot, that is imo a waste of time and we all pay as any monetary award is passed on by the company/person involved.



I'm sitting here drinking a cup of Borders coffee.  As I write this I'm sticking my finger in it.  My finger comes out undamaged.  The coffee is hot enough to be a rewarding beverage, yet I'm not injured by it.

Fifteen years ago a freshly purchased cup of McDonald's coffee would have left a second degree burn, or greater, on my finger.  It would take upwards of fifteen minutes for it to cool to a level where one could drink it. Check the links I posted.  The standard of reasonable care on the part of McDonald's was not met.  700 people were burned that were reported.  McDonald's had settled claims upwards of half a million _prior_ to last famous case.  I'm not going to go over it again.  

Had you received such burns that required a week of hospitalization and skin grafts and then were offered a pittance of $800, I find it difficult to believe _you _ wouldn't sue.

Bottom line:  The McDonald's law suit changed the industry standard for safety.  McDonald's and other companies don't serve coffee that burns people severely.  

The price of Big Macs didn't jump overnight because of this.  A company that puts 1.7 BILLION into yearly advertising isn't going to notice the monetary effects of this award..._but they will notice customer outrage over their serving food items that painfully maim._


http://www.curmudgeonlyclerk.com/weblog/archives/2003_10.html#000510

Regards,

Steve


----------



## Melissa426 (Aug 3, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> universal health care does not equal living under a communist dictatorship - and Medicaid/Medicare are remarkably cheap and help many Americans. There are other models out there for universal health care that DO work. Our nation has the money - we are giving it away to corporations who get out of paying taxes.


 
Feisty Mouse
I agree with everything you said, but maybe another thread should be started to talk about that issue?:idunno: 

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 3, 2004)

Discussion on Universal Health Care can be found here for those who are looking...


----------



## Taimishu (Aug 3, 2004)

Steve admitting what you say is true but coffee, tea, and other hot drinks are made with/by boiling water, boiling water is 100c and that is well known. Sure you can let it cool and I think most people do just that. Now I agree that sometimes action needs to be taken but sueing for something like that. If I drive with a hot drink between my legs and get scalded then that is my own fault and not something I would sue over.

I feel that this paticular item is getting blown out of all proportion and is hijacking this thread and as such this is my last word on this subject.
You have your thoughts and so do I and we must both respect the others right to differ.

David


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 3, 2004)

Taimishu said:
			
		

> Steve admitting what you say is true but coffee, tea, and other hot drinks are made with/by boiling water, boiling water is 100c and that is well known. Sure you can let it cool and I think most people do just that. Now I agree that sometimes action needs to be taken but sueing for something like that. If I drive with a hot drink between my legs and get scalded then that is my own fault and not something I would sue over.
> 
> I feel that this paticular item is getting blown out of all proportion and is hijacking this thread and as such this is my last word on this subject.
> You have your thoughts and so do I and we must both respect the others right to differ.
> ...



David,

No, its not blown out of proportion.  As to whether it is "hijacking" the thread, I argue it isn't.  We've returned to this topic because apparently you didn't read the links.

McDonald's kept their coffee in the pot at a steady 180-185 degrees, not the 100 degrees you mention.  This was standard practice at all stores.  At that temperature "full thickness" burns occur within two to seven seconds of contact.  That means all the layers of the skin are destroyed.  It is a third degree burn.

Coffee at home is typically 135-145 degrees.

The McDonald's lawsuit is held up as an example for those advocating tort reform as a "frivolous" suit.  It was anything but.  Do a "Google" and punch in "McDonald's Coffee Suit" and you'll get about ten or twelve sites that link to facts concerning the case.

Or, you can believe in a lie.


Regards,

Steve


----------



## Taimishu (Aug 4, 2004)

100c=212f
You are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours so I would respectfully sugest that we leave it there.

David


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 4, 2004)

For those of you interested in perusing the McDonald's case details some more....

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

*There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case.  No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case.  McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle.  Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992.  Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.)  Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin.  A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas.  She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste.  He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature.  Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees.  He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat.  The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
*

*also*


*http://www.lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm*
*Everyone knows what you're talking about when you mention "the McDonald's lawsuit." Even though this case was decided in August of 1994, for many Americans it continues to represent the "problem" with our civil justice system. 

The business community and insurance industry have done much to perpetuate this case. They don't want us to forget it. They know it helps them convince politicians that "tort reform" and other restrictions on juries is needed. And worse, they know it poisons the minds of citizens who sit on juries. 

Unfortunately, not all the facts have been communicated - facts that put the case and the monetary award to the 81-year old plaintiff in a significantly different light. 

According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation. 

The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3:  The woman involved in this infamous case suffered veryserious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay. 

McFact No. 4:  The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5:  A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6:  After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7:  On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media. 

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

​The most important message this case has for you, the consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger posed by your early morning pick-me-up. Take extra care to make sure children do not come into contact with scalding liquid, and always look to the facts before rendering your decision about any publicized case.

*


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 4, 2004)

Thanks, Feisty.  I couldn't get the McFacts page to punch up on my Google.  You have a better McServer.

So...the award was lowered to $480,000.  McDonald's makes $1,300,000 per day off their coffee.  Through coffee sales alone they covered Liebeck's award in about four hours.  Had the original award been paid, they would have had to sell coffee for about two days to pay up.  It wouldn't have caused a ripple in their profits.

David, I realize I can't change your mind, which is distressing when one considers the overwhelming evidence presented against your case.  I'm not going to ask you to reconsider.  Others, however, read this thread and might like the added information for clarification.  If not...they just scrollllllll on down.  But you may be basing your belief on a misunderstanding, so let me clarify something.

You'll note that we were talking about _fahrenheit temperature_ readings, not celsius.  Here in the United States the latter reading isn't used as frequently.  According to your profile you're from London, so I assume you're more familiar with the celsius measuring system.

McDonald's coffee was served at 82.22 degrees celsius.  At that temperature severe scalding burns occur, even though the coffee isn't boiling.  The coffee I am drinking right now at home is at 62.78 degrees celsius.  Fresh out of the pot it didn't scald me.

Apparently you assumed that McDonald's served their coffee at eighty celsius degrees above boiling, which it didn't.  Nor does home brewed coffee come out of the pot at 45 degrees celsius above boiling.  At least, not here in America.

Regards,

Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 4, 2004)

As an aside about that particular case, I was curious as to how much the victim was awarded for pain and suffering.  3rd degree burns - and debridement treatments - anywhere, but particularly on the genital area must be absolutely agonizing.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 4, 2004)

"Debridement" for those that don't know, means the surgical excision of dead flesh.  From past accounts I've read, the patient screams during treatment.  Perhaps they're better about using pain meds today.

Though I knew the meaning of the word, I looked it up, curious as to its etiology.  

The ever present ad at the top said, "Get the most popular sites for debridement."  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## MartialArtist68 (Aug 4, 2004)

Some people are so stupid. I've heard stories go so far as to say that some people will go to a grocery store, step pn a grape, and then lay down where they would have fallen, thereby faking an "accident". They would then slap the store with a lawsuit.

pk


----------



## Nightingale (Aug 4, 2004)

debridement can also be done using maggots.  they put sterile maggots on the skin and let them crawl around and eat the dead flesh.  maggots will not eat live tissue, only dead, so they're ideal for cleaning out wounds.  however, most people can't get over the ick factor.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 4, 2004)

MartialArtist68 said:
			
		

> Some people are so stupid. I've heard stories go so far as to say that some people will go to a grocery store, step pn a grape, and then lay down where they would have fallen, thereby faking an "accident". They would then slap the store with a lawsuit.
> 
> pk


. . . and we have all heard stories about jack planting a seed which grew into a stalk that allowed him to climb into the sky and meet a giant.

Do you have a case number for the story you present? Do you have a verdict? 

We certainly welcome you contributions, but please support your arguments.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 4, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> debridement can also be done using maggots. they put sterile maggots on the skin and let them crawl around and eat the dead flesh. maggots will not eat live tissue, only dead, so they're ideal for cleaning out wounds. however, most people can't get over the ick factor.


I saw maggots in the news the other day ... but because of the 'ick' factor, I wasn't actually going to read the article.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/08/02/maggot.medicine.ap/index.html


----------



## Nightingale (Aug 4, 2004)

its a very interesting article!


----------



## Taimishu (Aug 4, 2004)

Feisty Mouse
Thank you for the article.
There are points I was unaware of.

Steve Thanks for the clarification but if I was to put lets say a hot soldering iron under my arm to hold it what would that make me?
David


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 4, 2004)

David - you're welcome.

Nightingale -



> debridement can also be done using maggots. they put sterile maggots on the skin and let them crawl around and eat the dead flesh. maggots will not eat live tissue, only dead, so they're ideal for cleaning out wounds. however, most people can't get over the ick factor.


I've heard of this before.  THAT'S SO COOL!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 4, 2004)

Taimishu said:
			
		

> Feisty Mouse
> Thank you for the article.
> There are points I was unaware of.
> 
> ...




It'd make you dumber than a box of rocks, David.  But we also call that a fallacious analogy.  In tort law they take into account the negligence of the maker of the product.  Were the soldering iron to electrocute or burn you because of a defect in its construction, that would be a different matter.  It is taken as a matter of course that people will accidentally spill coffee.  It happens.  When it happens seven hundred times, and injures a number of people seriously, and then the company in question knowingly does nothing about it...then we have actionable negligence.  

Now as to the people who pretend to slip and fall on a grape, that isn't a frivolous suit.  That is fraud.  There is a difference.  People who have made false claims and were caught doing it have been jailed.  

I'm going to switch gears here and go find some actual examples of frivolous suits, so I can play Devil's Advocate to my own line of argument.  But first I'm going to get lunch and a 145 degree fahrenheit cup of coffee.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## PeachMonkey (Aug 4, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> I respectfully choose to disagree with you. It is not a purely hypothetical situation. The facts of the case (which I made up on the spur of the moment) may be arguable, but the consequences are not.
> Good physicians are being driven out of business or being forced to relocate to more reasonable states because of ungodly high malpractice premiums.


 Actually, I still have not seen a direct link between the consequences that you claim, and the causes to which you attest them.  It has been shown in earlier posts on this thread that malpractice limits do not stop malpractice insurance companies from raising their rates; the example used was California.  Since this is the case, why do you blame the people suing for malpractice rather than the insurance companies themselves?



			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Try to find an Ob/Gyn in Nevada or Mississippi. You may have to drive up to 1 to 2 hours to get one. Want to do that while you're in labor?


 I grew up in rural Colorado, an area where one easily had to drive two hours to find a *general practitioner*.  This situation grew worse and worse over time because it is harder and harder to convince medical students to live in rural areas, not because of malpractice insurance.  Why are you so sure that this isn't the case with your Nevada and Mississippi examples?

Your points about Medicaid and Medicare are best discussed in another thread, but I will point out that the greatest difficulties caused by these problems come when politicans step in to cut benefits, or when doctors commit fraud against them.


----------



## Melissa426 (Aug 4, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Actually, I still have not seen a direct link between the consequences that you claim, and the causes to which you attest them. It has been shown in earlier posts on this thread that malpractice limits do not stop malpractice insurance companies from raising their rates; the example used was California. Since this is the case, why do you blame the people suing for malpractice rather than the insurance companies themselves?
> 
> 
> I grew up in rural Colorado, an area where one easily had to drive two hours to find a *general practitioner*. This situation grew worse and worse over time because it is harder and harder to convince medical students to live in rural areas, not because of malpractice insurance. Why are you so sure that this isn't the case with your Nevada and Mississippi examples?
> ...


Read this for an eye opener.


http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr07-16-04.cfm


This is a real crisis, IMHO.

I see you live in Indiana. (GO COLTS!!) Indiana is one of the few states where a malpractice awards cap is in place.  Nonetheless, the Indiana legislature passed a increase of 70% for doctors malpractice insurance premium surcharge.  But, because Indiana does have a cap in place, the states malpractice rates are still significantly and substantially less than most of the other states in the country.  
If we have universal healthcare, who do you think is gonna be in charge?  The politicians who step in and determine benefits, that's who.


----------



## Melissa426 (Aug 4, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I'm going to switch gears here and go find some actual examples of frivolous suits, so I can play Devil's Advocate to my own line of argument. But first I'm going to get lunch and a 145 degree fahrenheit cup of coffee.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> ...


Here's a start! 
http://espn.go.com/minorlh/news/2002/1112/1460051.html

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## JAGMD (Aug 4, 2004)

Peachmonkey, once again I must disagree with you.  Your argument that it is the insurance companies greed and not the trial lawyers fivolous suits that is raising premiums is wrong on its face.  It is obvious because if the insurance companies were making so much money in this environment they would be falling all over each other to increase their market share.  However, what is actually going on in my home state of FL and the other states mentioned earlier is that many insurance companies are leaving the state as far as offering medical malpractice insurance.  As for your claim that medicare fraud by doctors plays any significant role in the problem is simply laughable.  Even including all legitimate as well as fraudulent claims,  physicians only take in only 3 cents of every health care dollar spent in this country.  Fraudulent claims are a tiny fraction of this.  There just simply isn't enough money involved to be significant.  The real problem is that there is a huge incentive for a lawyer to bring a frivolous claim and no penalty for doing so.  Trial lawyers take on average 40%(!) of the plaintiffs award, and all they have to do is convince 6 people with no medical education (who feel bad for someone who had a bad outcome) that the doctor must have made a mistake.  Plus most insurance companies will settle for 150 K almost automatically, because it costs double to defend the physician who did nothing wrong.  Thats an almost automatic 60K for filing almost any frivolous suit.
    Let me go off on a tangent for a moment.  Law is the only true profession left.  The definition of a profession includes that the body be self-regulated.  Doctors are regulated in the matter desricbed above, by lawyers and uneducated jurors.  Lawyers only by other lawyers on ethics comittees.  Doctors spend 3 times as long in training, and yet somehow don't get the right to be tried by a jury OF THEIR PEERS.  (6 people who don't know their gluteus maximus from their olecranon are not our PEERS).  Furthermore, I firmly believe that due to our difference in training, doctors could be far better judges of a lawyer's ethics than lawyers are of physician's medical judgement.  The media has painted doctors as filthy rich people who constantly make mistakes and committ medicare fraud.  Here's some facts: Doctors help far, far more people than they hurt.  Doctors never intentionally hurt anyone, but are in fact human and not perfect.  Doctors salaries have DECREASED 300% in the past decade.  I am an anesthesiologist.  If I had graduated in 1992, I would have made between 600 and 800 thousand per year.  I graduated 2 yrs ago and had a starting salary of 170K working 80hrs per week.  In fact the electrican I hired yesterday makes DOUBLE per hour than I do!  Just so you know I saved 2 peoples' lives last week.  My friend is a internist and billed his HMO patient $100 for a thorough medical exam.  The HMO paid him 6 mos later the sum total of $14 for that exam.  Imagine the electrician spending 40 minutes at my condo yesterday and asking me for $225 and I told him "here's a twenty, have a nice day".  It wouldn't fly, but we do it to the doctors who save our lives every single day.  Then the lawyers can sue us for everything we own without even a decent case.
   But I digress, let me give you an example of a real case.  Six months ago, my fiancee' was called for jury duty.  A man presented to the ER with signs of a stroke.  Every medical text will tell you to get a CT scan to determine whether the stroke is caused by bleeding or the blood clot blocking an artery.  If it is the latter, the physician can administer a drug to break up the clot and if done quickly enough will resolve the stroke.  However if you give that drug to the patient with the hemorrhagic stroke you will kill him immediately!!!!  It turns out that this patient had the clot and the lawyer sued him saying thatif he hadn't sent the patient to CT scan first, the patient MIGHT have had a better outcome.  (remember he might have also killed him if it was the other kind).  This Dr. did everything by the book, exactly the standard of care.  Yet he was sued for millions and had to spend tens of thousands defending himself in a six week trial during which time he also couldn't work costing him thousands more.  If this case was brought up before a medical review pannel it would have been thrown out in seconds.  Instead it took six weeks of trying to explain pathophysiology of cerebrovascular ischemia to average joes and janes.  Luckily the jurors saw through the lawyer's B.S., but it still cost the Dr. close to 100K in legal fees and missed work (and he won!)  At least he didn't lose everything.  Can he sue the lawyer?  Obviously, if the lawyer had done any research at all, he would have known the case had no merit right?  He should be able to sue the lawyer for 100K at least, right?  No, sorry, the LAWYERS decided that if the Dr could sue for this, then that would restrict plaintiff's ability and right to sue.  Yes it would, It would RESTRICT it to cases WITH MERIT.  At the very least we should cut the lawyer's take from 40% to something like 10% this would reduce the incentive to pursue BS cases.  John Edwards made 150 million dollars by suing doctors.  150 MILLION.  How many lives has he saved?  I will never see ten percent of that.  This country has turned to crap and it IS the lawyers fault!  In 25 years we will have idiots caring for our lives, because people like me with an IQ of 160 will no longer choose to become doctors for obvious reasons.  Then we will see how many medical mistakes there are and it will be the lawyers' fault then too!


----------



## OULobo (Aug 5, 2004)

My opinion is that it is a combination of many of the things listed here. I'm not saying that because I want to be friendly to all causes, but instead I realize that the reason this is such a problem is that there is no easy one step solution, like capping or central health care, this is so because every one of the problems listed in this thread is a contributor on some level and each one has a separate and not necessarily compatible solution. 

Lawyers are just taking advantage of a problem that exists. By taking huge percentages of the findings, they are in fact motivating the cases to increase the money at stake. The doctors are overworked and exist in an environment that tolerates no mistakes. Like most people they just follow the money or more importantly flee where there is a lack of it. There is an amount of abulance chasing and frivolous litigation that it still amazes me makes it past some judges. There is a ton of manuvering by insurance companies. They prod the doctors to preach to the patients about outrageous settlements just to give everyone a target that isn't them., while they raise rates regardless of payouts and tort reform. They figure the only things people generally hate more than insurance companies are tax men and lawyers, let everyone blame a lawyer for insurance costs and loss of good providers in the area. Cutting lawyers and lawsuits means more money in their pockets. They will never decrease the premiums now that it is up this high regardless of tort reform.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 5, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Here's a start!
> http://espn.go.com/minorlh/news/2002/1112/1460051.html
> 
> Peace,
> Melissa




Excellent example!  Now can you find one where the lawsuit was justified?

Here are four more, taken from Snopes.com.  _All the cases were dismissed _ eventually, as I suspect the one above will be:

In March 1995, a San Diego man unsuccessfully attempted to sue the city and Jack Murphy Stadium for $5.4 million over something than can only be described as a wee problem -- Robert Glaser claimed the stadium's unisex bathroom policy at a Billy Joel and Elton John concert caused him embarrassment and emotional distress thanks to the sight of a woman using a urinal in front of him. He subsequently tried "six or seven" other bathrooms in the stadium only to find women in all of them. He asserted he "had to hold it in for four hours" because he was too embarrassed to share the public bathrooms with women. 

A San Carlos, California, man sued the Escondido Public Library for $1.5 million. His dog, a 50-pound Labrador mix, was attacked November 2000 by the library's 12-pound feline mascot, L.C., (also known as Library Cat). The case was heard in January 2004, with the jury finding for the defendant. 

In 1994, a student at the University of Idaho unsuccessfully sued that institution over his fall from a third-floor dorm window. He'd been mooning other students when the window gave way. It was contended the University failed to provide a safe environment for students or to properly warn them of the dangers inherent to upper-story windows. 

In 1993, McDonald's was unsuccessfully sued over a car accident in New Jersey. While driving, a man who had placed a milkshake between his legs, leaned over to reach into his bag of food and squeezed the milkshake container in the process. When the lid popped off and spilled half the drink in his lap, this driver became distracted and ran into another man's car. That man in turn tried to sue McDonald's for causing the accident, saying the restaurant should have cautioned the man who had hit him against eating while driving. 



Regards,

Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 5, 2004)

Here are some other silly lawsuits that I came up with on a Google:

As a United States Senator, Rick Santorum has repeatedly supported limits on consumers' rights to seek compensation in the courts. In 1994, Santorum sponsored the Comprehensive Family Health Access and Savings Act that would have capped non-economic damages at $250,000. In a 1995 floor speech supporting damages caps, Santorum said, "We have a much too costly legal system. It is one that makes us uncompetitive and inefficient, and one that is not fair to society as a whole. While we may have people, individuals, who hit the jackpot and win the lottery in some cases, that is not exactly what our legal system should be designed to do." 

But the same rhetoric does not seem to apply to Senator Santorum. In December 1999 Santorum supported his wife's medical malpractice lawsuit against her chiropractor for $500,000. At trial, the Senator testified that his wife should be compensated for the pain and suffering caused by a botched spine adjustment, claiming that she had to "treat her back gingerly" and could no longer accompany him on the campaign trail. After the verdict, Santorum refused to answer phone calls asking what impact the case had on his views of "tort reform." According to his spokesman Robert Traynham, "Senator Santorum is of the belief that the verdict decided upon by the jury during last week's court case of his wife is strictly a private matter. The legislative positions that Senator Santorum has taken on tort reform and health care have been consistent with the case involving Mrs. Santorum." In January 2000, a judge set aside the $350,000 verdict, deeming it excessive, and offered a reduced award of $175,000 or a new trial on damages only. 

-------

As a member of the House Civil Justice and Claims Committee, Mark Flanagan was a major force behind severe tort restrictions that were enacted in Florida in 1999, sponsoring and co-sponsoring bills that protect manufacturers of defective products, while calling Florida "the most litigious society in the world." 

But it was a different story when his own daughter fell from a daycare center's jungle gym and broke her leg in 1995. Flanagan sued both the day care center and the manufacturer of the jungle gym, alleging that the manufacturer "negligently and carelessly designed" the apparatus and that the preschool failed to properly supervise his daughter. Like many injured victims whose rights Flanagan's legislation decimates, the lawsuit alleged that his daughter suffered from "severe pain" and "lost the capacity to enjoy life." After 18 months of litigation -- and two months before his bid for re-election -- Flanagan settled for an undisclosed amount. 

------

In April 1995, Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) helped lobby for legislation that capped punitive damages, limited governmental and professional liability, undermined joint and several liability and decimated Texas' Deceptive Claims Practices Act. 

Yet at the time this legislation passed, TLR Board members Leo Linbeck, Richard Trabulsi and Richard Weekley had themselves filed over 60 lawsuits either personally or as business owners. Between 1978 and 1995, Leo Linbeck's construction company was the plaintiff in at least 37 lawsuits. In one suit, which was settled confidentially, his company sued its own insurance company for triple damages stemming from the deaths of three workers in a construction accident. In another case, settled in November 1988, Linbeck sued for punitive damages. 

By 1995, Board member Richard Trabulsi had also filed suit numerous times. In 1986, as the owner of Richard's Liquor and Fine Wines, Trabulsi sued Walgreen's to force it to stop selling alcohol in Texas. He also filed a personal-injury suit against his company in which the company prevailed. He told the Houston Post, "I have had access to the courts a number of times I had forgotten." As of 1995, TLR President and co-founder Richard Weekley, head of Weekley Properties and Weekley Development and a partner of David Weekley Homes, had sued six times; his companies had sued 14 times. 

--------

Sterling Cornelius, owner of Cornelius Nurseries and Turkey Creek Farms in Houston and a trustee of the corporate front-group, Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA), is one of the most vocal businessmen complaining about lawsuits and advocating tort restrictions in Texas. With the help and support of the Texas CALA group, Texas enacted a series of "tort reforms" in 1995, including caps on punitive damages and severe restrictions on lawsuits filed under Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act. 

But in 1993, Sterling filed a $100 million lawsuit against DuPont, claiming that its fungicide, Benlate, damaged his companies' crop and nursery. Among the damages Cornelius sought were $75.3 million in punitive damages under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act as well as additional punitive damages. Because his lawsuit was filed before enactment of the 1995 legislation, his lawsuit was not affected by the "tort reforms" that passed. 

---------

Source for the above:

http://civilliberty.about.com/gi/dy...=http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/4286


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 5, 2004)

It's amazing that hypocrisy is so rampant!


----------



## PeachMonkey (Aug 5, 2004)

JAGMD,

First off, thanks for the post.  It is dense with information and food for thought, even though you and I don't see eye to eye.  A little more spacing in your posts in the future might make them easier to parse and respond to 

I'm not sure exactly why malpractice insurance companies are leaving states like FL.  It is, however, a fact that malpractice insurance companies in TX and CA continued to raise their rates after tort reform.  In the end, how does this help anyone other than the insurance companies' shareholders and executives?  In fact, I would suspect that companies are leaving FL and other locales because of increased regulation of their behavior.

My comment about Medicare fraud was in response to an earlier mention of why universal health care was supposedly not feasible.  Medicare fraud is actually quite rare.

Your other points about how difficult it is to defend against frivolous lawsuits are well taken; however, none of the problems you describe will be solved by the tort reform proposed by the Republican Congress.  Trials will still be judged by non-educated peers.  Lawyers will still take massive fees.  Insurance companies will still fail to defend suits below a certain amount.

I have a hard time feeling badly for anyone with a starting salary of 170K, unfortunately, even though I'm sure with your hard work, training, education, and livesaving skills you deserve it.  Many people who do lots of good for others will never see an income like that their entire lives.

HMOs can pay doctors so little because they negotiate contracted rates on a massive scale.  This is a natural act in the free market that so many conservatives claim to worship.  Many doctors who do not feel they are paid enough by HMOs refuse to take insurance clients, even in countries with national health services.  Universal health care might even improve this situation, since a government-backed single-payer system eliminates the profit motive, allowing larger payments to doctors.

I never claimed that doctors were filthy, evil people... the vast majority save lives every day.  Some doctors are scumbags, like in every profession.  Even good people make mistakes.  There has to be a way to protect doctors from frivolous lawsuits without taking away the right of patients who have been incompetently treated to gain recourse.

Your comment about John Edwards is mainly tangential, but you will find an earlier mention in this thread of some of the serious, positive work that Edwards accomplished as a trial lawyer.  Just as you claim doctors are unfairly excoriated, it is also unfair to paint all trial lawyers with the same brush.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 6, 2004)

*What Crisis? * 

GAO: Malpractice Premium Spikes Don't Force Out Docs 

By Sandra G. Boodman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 16, 2003; Page HE01 

The stories are legion: pregnant women unable to find doctors to deliver their babies because disgruntled obstetricians have closed their practices or retired in droves; white-coated physicians hitting the picket lines and threatening to shut down emergency rooms; desperate patients forced to travel long distances to find a specialist willing to perform lifesaving surgery.

The culprit, according to the American Medical Association (AMA) and President Bush: multimillion-dollar jury awards in malpractice cases that have resulted in insurance premium increases so huge that they are forcing doctors out of business and jeopardizing patients' access to health care. 

But a new study by the General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, has reached a very different conclusion about the effect of rising malpractice premiums on consumers. Investigators who studied nine states found instances of localized but not widespread problems of access to health care mostly in "scattered, often rural, areas" that have long-standing problems attracting doctors. 

And many of those highly publicized accounts of doctors who have retired or moved are, according to the GAO, either "not substantiated," temporary or involved only a few physicians... 
-------

"....malpractice payouts decreased by 8.2 percent between 2001 and 2002. Meanwhile, doctors" premiums didn't go down.

Damage awards greater than $1 million decreased more than 10 percent between those years. Doctors" premiums weren't affected.

There's simply no correlation between lawsuits and insurance rates. Rather, insurance rates are tied to the climate of the stock and bond market, where insurance companies invest much of their money."

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/RisingCostOfMedicalMalpracticeInsurance.htm

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Melissa426 (Aug 6, 2004)

Non-frivolous lawsuit?

OK, the 100 people who died in the fire in Rhode Island due to negligence of the club owner/band's pyrotechnic operator?  Not only is that a non-frivolous lawsuit, I think whoever is responsible should be charged with manslaughter.

NOT A CRISIS?

This article is 2 years old, but it is about Las Vegas, not exactly a rural city.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/Daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=11105

This is about Pennsylvania

http://www.concernedcitizensforcare.com/facts2.html


Good, qualified able students I believe will quit going to medical school, cause trust me, there's a lot easier ways to make good money without all the hassle (paperwork, especially, re:insurance companys),  headache(sleepless nights),
 heartache,(losing a patient you busted your butt to save) and hardship (3-10 years of training _after medical school, making $30K if you are lucky._ )

After all the debate, what I see is that it doesn't matter whose fault it is, skyrocketing malpractice rates are a real problem. Whether it is the doctor or insurance company, there needs to be a solution.

Those who say everything is fine with the current legal/justice system, I respectfully disagree with you.

Any ideas?

Peace, 
Melissa


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 6, 2004)

> HMOs can pay doctors so little because they negotiate contracted rates on a massive scale. This is a natural act in the free market that so many conservatives claim to worship.


This is actually a fallacy that is misunderstood by the public.  HMOs do not "negotiate contracted rates."  They set fees, and doctors must accept them.  It is NOT a free market.

Suppose Aetna Health Plans pays $27 for a 1-hour new patient medical evaluation.  Now you know full well that an hour of doctor time, including rent, staff, and overhead costs the doctor more than $27.  Hell, it costs more for a nice haircut.  Doctors cannot "negotiate" that fee.  They can take it or leave it.  In other words, they can choose to participate in Aetna Health Plans or not.  But if they don't, then the 10,000 patients with Aetna insurance that live in their town will not be coming to those doctors.

Maybe you're thinking, well, OK, they can participate in Oxford Health Plans, or HIP.  But THOSE plans also pay a non-negotiable $27, and they "own" another 23,000 patients.

What happens is that doctors can't spend an hour on an evaluation, and the patient feels that they've been given the bum's rush.

And, BTW, it is illegal for doctors to organize into groups (ie "unions") to negotiate fees.

And here's where the lawsuit part comes in:  if the HMO denies a service, and the patient is harmed because of that, the DOCTOR gets sued...the HMO is exempt.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Aug 6, 2004)

Melissa,

 The articles you quote are a press release from a Republican governor claiming that his version of tort reform will work, and a list of rural doctors who are going out of business. Neither of these correlate malpractice suits to malpractice insurance costs, and we've seen data that malpractice insurance costs go up regardless of tort reform.



			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> (3-10 years of training _after medical school, making $30K if you are lucky._


 It's a shame that starting doctors' salaries in some fields are so low, particularly given their training expenses. Many medical specialties, however, have starting salaries beyond what most people can expect to be paid in their lifetimes.



			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> After all the debate, what I see is that it doesn't matter whose fault it is, skyrocketing malpractice rates are a real problem. Whether it is the doctor or insurance company, there needs to be a solution.


 Agreed. And here's a solution: a National Health Service. Publically funded health care, medical training, the works. The rest of the industrialized world manages to pull it off and maintain excellent standards of health care; why can't the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth?

 Think that's too extreme? Here's another solution: single-payer health insurance. Eliminate the insurance industry's proft motives, and publicize health insurance and malpractice insurance.



			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Those who say everything is fine with the current legal/justice system, I respectfully disagree with you.


 Are you suggesting anyone on this thread has said "everything is fine"? If so, would you mind pointing out where that was said? Thanks.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Aug 6, 2004)

Phoenix,

I did not realize that doctors were not allowed to organize in order to negotiate with HMOs.  Can you point me to more information about that?

While many doctors likely are in no position to negotiate with the larger HMOs, I know for a fact that many doctors negotiate with health insurance organizations, because a surgeon who has worked on me does it every year with my university's health plan.

Keep in mind that in addition to the small fees paid by insurance, doctors are also receiving a co-payment directly from the pocket of the insured party.

In the end, tort reform won't solve this issue either.  HMOs are a whole other problem, with a powerful lobby (much like malpractice insurance companies) whose interest is profit, rather than the health of their customers.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 6, 2004)

Peach Monkey, doctors are only permitted collective bargaining if they are employees of let's say, a hospital; or if they are for instance, a large group practice.  Doctors in independent practices are not permitted to group together for the purpose of negotiating fees.  For example, a county medical society could not negotiate fees for their member doctors.  The Federal Trade Commission considers this an anti-trust violation, and it will prosecute 100% of the time.  So doctors have no sway whatsoever with HMOs fees.

If your surgeon can negotiate with a university's plan, that means either that it is probably a self-insured plan, rather than a large HMO, he's the only surgeon in a large geographic area, OR that there are very few surgeons associated with the plan, so they have to deal with him.

BTW,when an HMO cites a fee, the patient's co-pay is subtracted from the total, and the physician collects it from the patient.  The copay is not in addition to the stated fee.

Here's the FTCs statement:
http://www.ftc.gov/reports/hlth3s.htm#8.

Here's an easier to read version:  http://www.objectivemedicine.org/antitrust_crisis_in_healthcare.htm

But I'm off topic, sorry.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Aug 6, 2004)

Phoenix,

I can understand why anti-trust legislation comes into play here... it would be extremely dangerous if doctors were allowed to collude in order to set fees, since they could form monpolistic blocs and truly hose patients.  Clearly, however, HMOs are taking advantage of this situation, and further regulation is needed to tune this disparity... as one of your links suggests, health care has not been a free market for some time.

You're right that the patient's co-pay is subtracted from the total, but I think it's important to bring up in the context of the "$27" fee you mentioned.  For instance, my health care plan pays my general practiioner $60 for a level one evaluation.  I pay a $25 co-pay, so while the insurance company pays only $35, the doctor still sees $60.

Moreover, I see my doctor for nearly five minutes for this evaluation, and a nurse for another five minutes.  $600/hr isn't bad, though I'm sure expenses are also quite high.  Since my doctor works in a group office, that probably helps with said expenses.


----------



## SMP (Sep 5, 2004)

what about insurance companies - you dont see too much competition there.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 13, 2004)

OK, I totally stole this from thesemindz, he posted it in the Gun Forum.  I thought it applicable here, as it seems that Bushmaster settled in order to prevent the legal costs from getting out of hand, and their insurance company would pony up some of the damages.

Definitely something wrong in a system where some one (or company) who in no way bears responsibility must pay out of pocket for the idiocy of others.


----------

