Bush Launches Battle to Limit Malpractice Awards

, Ill. (Reuters) - President Bush charged on Wednesday that trial lawyers pursuing medical malpractice lawsuits are driving doctors out of business and driving up health care costs, as he opened a contentious battle to convince Congress to limit malpractice damage awards.

"This system is out of control," Bush said in decrying the proliferation of what he called "junk" lawsuits filed by lawyers looking to enrich themselves with jackpot jury awards that are forcing insurance companies to raise malpractice premiums for doctors.

With his first big speech of the new year in an area considered a magnet for malpractice lawsuits, Bush launched a campaign to limit damages awarded by a jury for malpractice pain and suffering to $250,000, effectively ending multimillion-dollar awards. His plan would still allow unlimited damages to cover economic losses.

Legislation to cap malpractice awards passed the House of Representatives last year but stalled in the Senate.

http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7247860

who went up there to whine (testify). I've told him many times that we went through this in California. Malpractice insurance rates have stabilized, I believe, due to addressing insurance industry practice (think 'collusion'), rather than due to our MICRA statute (caps on liability). Please do not hold the relationship against me.

No one listens. Just an attack on lawyers who try to help victims, in my humble opinion. Anybody who has taken a torts class in law school knows the legal protections built into the system that work against unfair awards. For example, a judge may reduce an excessive award. Our esteemed pResident seems dedicated to paying back certain industries and trade groups for their support (and screw the public).

That is all he wants to do. He HATES Edwards and wants to try to drive him into bankruptcy.

These efforts of his just are not going to work. Window-dressing, I say. And a payback to the insurance company industry (they think - I still think that its not going to work - the Bush efforts that is).

It seems to me there are much more important issues for the BFEE to push. Let's start with health care, for example. Everyone should be able to get it.

That is, until they need one for one of THEIR frivilous lawsuits. :eyes:

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

YOUR RIGHT TO SUE

Look for a big push by Bush this year to restrict your right to sue corporations that harm or cheat you.

http://www.jimhightower.com

It is an example of allowing the other side to frame the debate when we talk about a right to sue.

Instead, say "your right to seek justice and redress from negligent corporations who place profit over safety and human life."

Judges regularly declare lawsuits "frivolous" if they have no legal basis - in fact, lawyers who file them (or prisoners filing pro se) are regularly sanctioned by courts.

"Frivolous" is actually a term of art used by defendants to challenge a lawsuit, not in a court of law but in a court of public opinion. By any real measure ANY lawsuit that survives the initial challenges to evidence and cause of action is NOT frivolous; the process has determined that whatever the plaintiff claims to have happened deserves at least a hearing before a jury. The process itself weeds out "frivolous" matters, or, alternately, shows the defense that the evidence is so strong they will certainly face a large judgment and should settle with the plaintiff.

I notice that in all the Bush Administration's claims about "frivolous medical malpractice cases" they never cite ONE example of such a case. In point of fact there CAN NEVER BE a "frivolous" malpractice claim because those actions are among the most complex to try in court. NO lawyer would ever take a malpractice case unless he were CERTAIN he had more than a 50 percent chance of winning. To prove med mal, you must show that the health care provider did not follow what the medical establishment itself has determined to be a proper course of care. To do that, a lawyer must get other doctors to tell a jury what that proper course of care is and exactly where the defendant failed.

BTW, the lawyer DOESN'T GET PAID unless he wins; his take on the judgment (up to 40 percent) may seem high, but it actually pays for all the work and research a lawyer's team has done to prepare for a case - and sometimes that can take up to a decade. Could you work on something for 10 years without any payment? Lawyers must take cases they are relatively certain will have a payout - but now the Bushies want to limit those payouts, removing a lawyer's incentive to take a case. That may seem fine to some people -- until they take medication that a company KNEW would create heart trouble, or have some other encounter with a company that puts profits over consumer service.

It does cost thousands of dollars to litigate any lawsuit, but that is often because the defense refuses to admit a mistake or liability. Jurors punish such defendants by ordering them to pay high punitives. But in almost all instances the damages awards issued by the jury - including the VERY worthwhile "McDonald's Coffee Case" - is reduced by the trial court.

As usual, the Bush Administration is trying to hoodwink people into supporting something that will actually harm them. The civil jury system exists not only to protect consumers, but also to protect capitalism itself by giving consumers a weapon to punish those businesses that put out dangerous products or put people at risk. The voters THINK they are doing something to strengthen the economy; what they are really doing is making it financially impossible for lawyers to take on the cases that will protect them as consumers.

I've been privileged to the full information regarding a number of suits where the patient went AMA big time, causing him or herself harm and still won in court, mostly because the jury didn't truly understand the medicine and physiology and chemistry under question. I have no intention of supporting laws like the ones Bush supports, however I won't pretend that there aren't bad lawyers, just like there are bad doctors, and they can do harm themselves.

It means you disagreed with a jury.

make malpractice insurance higher. They just don't.

One of the dem senators did a really good presentation on this last year, I saw it on C-span. He effectively demonstrated that in some states that had insituted caps, malpractice insurance rates sky-rocketed anyway. In some states with no caps, malpract. insurance rates had stayed level.

The two things just are not related, just like 9/11 and Iraq. It's the old "matter of emphasis" game being used to dupe the masses into a policy of no recourse for medical injuries.

How about if we let a panel decide if a lawsuit has merits. How about if a lawyer brings 3 lawsuits without merit, they pull his license? That way the little people are protected and no frivolous lawsuits are filed. How about that?

Whoops. That was the Kerry/Edwards plan and it sounded good to me.

He loses his license to practice medicine.

Aren't these the devices that insurance companies use to "set rates"? They sound like statistics to me...(i.e. fungible)

Any accountants here to give me some edumacation on this?

They have no intention of limiting businesses right to sue each other.

And business v. business litigation is where the real big bucks change hands.

12 people have to get together and agree to these sums. I've done it myself on a jury and thought it was an equitable system. And then, as another DU'er mentioned, a judge can set aside awards that are not reasonable.

Yet I just heard some pundit on NPR supposedly explaining the Democratic party line on this one. Whatever she said, it was unmemorable and unconvincing.

Here is the anitdote, in my opinion: We trust ordinary Americans to come to equitable solutions in malpractice trials. We trust the people to decide, not government. It's a sure winner, which makes it almost certain the DLC won't pick it up.

On how to how to frame this debate. Certainly repukes are blaming hardworking, honest, Americans who do their duty on juries unreasonable. After all they represent the core of our legal system. A jury of average Americans who hear all the facts in a case and decide what is fair and equitable. How can that be wrong.

This is another right the republicans are taking away from you America.

I also agree that the national party is a failure at the frame the debate game. They need a lot of work in that area.

Sonia

after all if the doctor cannot be sued for malpractice they can do whatever they want. Neurosurgery? Hey, he attended a two-week seminar in the Bahamas. \

Doctors all too frequently sacrifice patient care for income. In my area there was a case of a hospital and doctors staffing same performing a number of unnecessary heart surgeries. These come with a very real risk of death. At the very least these people were maimed by the surgeons performing them. Bush would limit the ability of people to seek relief for their very real sufferings.

You'd think that "fair and balanced" legislation would also address the malpractice that gives rise to malpractice suits as well as the bountiful rewards for malpractice when there is inadequate accountability and deterrence.

(Fair and balanced...where have I heard that before?)

Trial lawyers as a group are major contributors to the Dems. If you limit jury awards, you decimate their income, and hence their contributions dry up.

That is what this whole "tort reform" crap is all about, IMHO. It follows on the heels of "right-to-work" laws (defunds unions) and laws which prohibit unions from giving money to candidates not supported by a member. Same thing with *'s unprecedented and unnecessary use of Taft-Hartley in the longshoremen's dispute here in California -- another union-busting tool.

The GOP isn't be happy to be the majority party; they want to be the only party!

Who the fuck cares about chimps opinion on this? Who asked his sorry ass for any advice? Why doesn't he run naked through the streets of Baghdad slapping his buttocks and shout "King Me..... King Me!" instead???

Thanks for the link and welcome to DU JKNIEVEL!

to divest the public of their Constitutional rights. The corrupt Bush administration is in the process of trying to overturn the processes guaranteed under the Consitution of the United States. There are hardly any guaranteed Constitutional provisions that this administration will not attempt to overturn.

hammondmv@netzero.com thanks.

David Morris: Malpractice suits aren't what needs fixing here
David Morris
January 10, 2005 MORRIS0110



One of the major cost drivers in the delivery of health care are these junk and frivolous lawsuits, President Bush has told the American people. Here are seven facts that prove him wrong:

• Insurance rates do not vary with the amount of claims paid out as much as with the amount of investment income that comes in.

According to the Government Accountability Office, during the 1990s, insurers competed vigorously for medical malpractice business, and several factors, including high investment returns, permitted them to offer (artificially low) prices. When stock prices and bond interest rates fell, insurer income plummeted, prompting dramatic rate hikes.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, at least half of the increase in rates from 2000 to 2002 was a result of declining investment returns. The other half was a result of major companies, like the St. Paul Co. (now St. Paul Travelers) withdrawing from the malpractice insurance business altogether as investment returns declined. Thousands of physicians were forced to scramble for alternatives. Many charged exorbitant prices. The insurance crises in some states, like West Virginia, Nevada and Pennsylvania, may largely be attributed to St. Paul Company's withdrawal, a withdrawal that, a massive class action lawsuit initiated by doctors charges, was a result of illegal financial manipulation.

• Medical malpractice insurance accounts for a tiny percentage of overall health care spending, less than 2 percent. And that percentage is falling because insurance rates have been rising at less than half the rate of increase in health costs.


David Morris: Malpractice suits aren't what needs fixing here.

Minneapolis Star Tribune, Monday, January 10, 2005.
I found this, read it, went back to copy the link and it wanted me to register. Well, you get the gist of it, or you can register for the rest.

all of our freedoms seems to be slowly drifting away under shrub's watch?

He's got an unblemished lifetime record of incompetence. All his favorite advisers have proven records of gross incompetence. Any who show signs of incipient or actual competence are fired.

Clearly he is a man on a mission to extend the benefits of incompetence across both the geopolitical and domestic spheres. "What y'all need is more incompetence!" says our Prez, and it is his Determination™ to pour the balm of gross negligance, inferior ability and lack of sense wherever it can do the most good. Having tackled the Middle East, he turns his benignant and myopic gaze to nation of his birth. This latest move signals his Bold™ intention to afford incompetents in all critical areas the protection they need to get the job done.

Where is incompetence most at risk from the elitist forces of reason and sound policy? The educational sphere? But he has already struck at the root of competence there. Underfunding of his own massive federal program--a brilliant and devastating tactical maneuver--the institution of meaningless rote testing everywhere--above all, the supplanting of science by "creation science"--clearly great advances are already underway. Diligance and persistance are needed, to be sure, but no point squandering resources.

Ah, but the medical professions, now. There is an obvious high-profile target, where the sinister myths of reason, scientific empiricism and the need not to fuck up have taken deep root. It's an obvious next choice.

where's our priorities? unimportant families who lost unimportant loved ones or a doctor's entitlement to immunity? come now, we can all agree a doctor's special priveledge to kill is more important than the people we love! -- retranslation of republican stance

:crazy:

yes, yes we are in the looking glass. if they want to fix malpractice insurance fix the insurance companies from gambling on the stock market and passing off their losses into higher premiums against good doctors. but noooo... that's sane. let's allow this madness instead! :eyes:

.

There was a doctor in my state who was videotaped burning his initials inside the chest cavity of a patient. That wasn't all he did by any means, but it's the thing that really stuck in my mind.

I do think that either the attorneys or their clients should be negatively reinforced for wasting the courts' time by bringing cases that are wholly without merit, not only medical malpractice but other suits.

kick for Khephra

:kick:

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/20936/

By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted January 10, 2005.


Attacking patients or their lawyers won't cure what ails the health care industry. Insurance reform is a better place to start. Story

"One of the major cost drivers in the delivery of health care are these junk and frivolous lawsuits," President Bush has told the American people, offering up his proposals to cap non-economic damages to patients injured by medical negligence. Here are seven facts that prove him wrong:


Insurance rates do not vary with the amount of claims paid out as much as with the amount of investment income that comes in.

"During the 1990s, insurers competed vigorously for medical malpractice business, and several factors, including high investment returns, permitted them to offer (artificially low) prices ... " according to the Government Accountability Office. When stock prices and bond interest rates fell, insurer income plummeted, prompting companies to increase rates to make up for the losses. Even the Congressional Budget Office has said that at least half of the rate increases from 2000 to 2002 were prompted by declining investment returns. The other half were a result of major companies, like the Saint Paul Company (now Saint Paul Travelers), withdrawing from the malpractice insurance business altogether because of the investment return declines. Thousands of physicians were forced to scramble for alternatives. Many charged exorbitant prices. The insurance crises in some states, like West Virginia, Nevada and Pennsylvania, may largely be attributed to Saint Paul Company's withdrawal.


Medical malpractice insurance accounts for less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. Even that percentage is falling because insurance rates have been rising at less than half the rate of increase in overall health costs.


David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis, Minn.

Party by limiting profits of plaintiff lawyers, who are more likely to donate to the Democratic Party.

Additionally, Bush's campaign contributers are rewarded, but drying up funding for the Democratic Party is what Bush's tort reform is primarily about.