Frivolous Lawsuits.

[Melissa426]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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


Melissa426...excellent post!


Regards,

Steve

 

[hardheadjarhead]

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]

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]

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


Melissa426...excellent post!


Regards,

Steve

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Taimishu]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.