goddamn democrats! (medical malpractice)

[Black Jesus]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91440,00.html

Nice fucking job guys, let's keep those fucking premiums through the goddamn roof.

[Prestius]

"Democrats said rising premiums were not to blame and said the bill would punish individuals already grievously impaired by medical errors while protecting groups such as the American Medical Association, HMOs, drug companies and the manufacturers of medical devices. "Time and time again this Senate races to protect special interest groups and forgets the families and children and elderly people across America who are the victims of this wrongdoing," "

Yeah .. damn Democrats.


-P

[Ramos]

Remember the Ford Pinto? The fury that surrounded it was not just because the car was defective, but because Ford made a "cost-benefit" analysis and determined that recalling and fixing the cars would cost more than settling lawsuits from those that were killed. So they decided not to recall the cars or even inform the public of the problem.

Fortunately, a California jury heard this and disabused Ford of their notion with a then-record-setting award of $128 million (for a single auto accident).

If the bill you are referring to had passed, how many people would die because the limits of lawsuits would be known, and thus could be factored into a cost-benefit analysis?

[Ilvane]

All the malpractice laws they've been trying to pass do is protect the malpractice insurers. I'm sorry, But I'd rather support people who have malpractice suits, in
most cases.

-A

[Scott]

The only problem is that almost all of the lawsuits are bull shit. Doctors screw up just like anyone else. It's ridiculous that people sue for millions of dollars for the dumbest reasons. "Oh my god, I'm a moron and I spilled coffee on myself, give me a million dollars!"

Doctors aren't perfect, they make mistakes, and when you go to a doctor, you know there is a chance the doctor could mess up. We wouldn't have this problem if juries weren't handing out 100 million dollar settlements left and right. If I was a medical doctor, I would make everyone sign a paper before I worked on them that said "No matter what, I can't be sued." I'm sure you'd lose some people, but at least I wouldn't have to pay so much for insurance....

[Black Jesus]

You just need to cap damages awards. No injury, even death is worth 5 billion dollars ok?

[Warriorbird]

My grandmother lost the use of both of her arms due to medical malpractice. Have to love the, "blame the victim" philosophy. Oddly, the lawyers who profiteer from the system the most generally happen to conservative.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
My grandmother lost the use of both of her arms due to medical malpractice. Have to love the, "blame the victim" philosophy. Oddly, the lawyers who profiteer from the system the most generally happen to conservative.

I have five members in my immediate family in the medical field and not a one will tell someone not to sue when there is a clear cut case of negligence.

The problem is with the damned lawyers as you mentioned who make a nice percentage of what they win and so of course do their damndest to get every last dollar from the Dr and their insurance company.

Funny how in every case there has to be one winner and one loser. Seems that would mean that there is a 50% winning rate among lawyers. Delicious irony that such a profession demands 100% success from doctors.

[Black Jesus]

actually i have the solution. kill all lawyers.

[Ramos]

Actually, it's not a bad idea to cap the amount lawyers can receive from a case. I can even see capping the amount that a single victim or victim's family can receive- maybe make any damage award in excess of the cap go toward medical research or something.

When you cap a person or organization's potential liability, however, you WILL get corporate executives who decide that the financial costs of fixing a problem are more than the financial costs of settling liability lawsuits resulting from injuries or deaths the problem causes.

[Parkbandit]

The problem lies with 'a jury of your peers'. People like you and me determining if a doctor is negligent or not. How the hell would we know?

While I do not believe in capping any damages... but obviously something has to be done. Who do you think pays for these jury handed lottery winnings anyways? That's right folks.. you and me. Joe E Public. The company may pay for it in the beginning.. but they recoup all they lost via increased fees, charges or prices.

The problem with the US right now is that we are WAY too Litigious.

[AnticorRifling]

Jury of your peers is for the person on trial. If a doctor is on trial for being negligent the jury should be composed of doctors or those medically versed. Is this always the case? No.

[Prestius]

>>The problem with the US right now is that we are WAY too Litigious.>>

I completely agree. A lot of people look at the courts as "Free Parking". Let's not lose sight of the fact that you can sue for anything. Whether you'll ever make it to court and win is another story.

However (and I know Parkbandit, you didn't bring this up), I am *really* getting tired of the old "McDonalds" scalding case being tossed out as an example of "bad litigation". If you actually take a few minutes to do a little bit of research, you'll find that the case actually made perfect sense.

Of course we all know coffee is hot. But,

- McDonalds' coffee was not just hot, it was *scaldingly* hot (190+ degrees), a temperature they knew was too hot for human consumption. The person suffered 3rd degree burns.

- The person was in a parked car, not driving when it happened.

- McDonald's knew that over 600 people had already been scalded by their coffee and had essentially paid them off to keep them quiet.

- the person who got scalded merely asked for medical expenses, which McDonalds refused to pay and forced them to go to trial.

- The jury awarded the person $200,000 which was reduced by 20% because she was partly at fault. They also slapped McDonalds with $2.7 mil in punative damages (3 days of McDonald's coffee sales), but that was reduced to $480,000.

- McDonalds since has lowered the temperature of their coffee so no one else gets injured.

So, even though at first blush the "hot coffee" case looks stupid, it actually shows how the court system can actually be used to hold a large corporation responsible and stop them from performing practices that endanger the public.

-P

[Black Jesus]

and you weigh like 300lbs dude. nice try but consider the fact that you need to have credibility before attempting to make a point.

[vigilante]

"and you weigh like 300lbs dude. nice try but consider the fact that you need to have credibility before attempting to make a point." (BJ)

And you think you have credibility because....

[Black Jesus]

why do you keep talking to me?

[vigilante]

Wrong answer. Zero credibility.

[Black Jesus]

go drink some slimfast before you have a heart ache and die of fatness

[Scott]

Originally posted by Prestius
>>The problem with the US right now is that we are WAY too Litigious.>>

I completely agree. A lot of people look at the courts as "Free Parking". Let's not lose sight of the fact that you can sue for anything. Whether you'll ever make it to court and win is another story.

However (and I know Parkbandit, you didn't bring this up), I am *really* getting tired of the old "McDonalds" scalding case being tossed out as an example of "bad litigation". If you actually take a few minutes to do a little bit of research, you'll find that the case actually made perfect sense.

Of course we all know coffee is hot. But,

- McDonalds' coffee was not just hot, it was *scaldingly* hot (190+ degrees), a temperature they knew was too hot for human consumption. The person suffered 3rd degree burns.

- The person was in a parked car, not driving when it happened.

- McDonald's knew that over 600 people had already been scalded by their coffee and had essentially paid them off to keep them quiet.

- the person who got scalded merely asked for medical expenses, which McDonalds refused to pay and forced them to go to trial.

- The jury awarded the person $200,000 which was reduced by 20% because she was partly at fault. They also slapped McDonalds with $2.7 mil in punative damages (3 days of McDonald's coffee sales), but that was reduced to $480,000.

- McDonalds since has lowered the temperature of their coffee so no one else gets injured.

So, even though at first blush the "hot coffee" case looks stupid, it actually shows how the court system can actually be used to hold a large corporation responsible and stop them from performing practices that endanger the public.

-P

Yeah. The idiot lady spilled hot coffee on herself and got burned. I guess if you turn on the faucet and burn yourself, you should sue the water company because you burned yourself, or perhaps the hot water tank people because it made the water to hot.

Even if you don't use the Mcdonalds coffee thing as an example, have you ever read the Stella (or real close to that) awards. People breaking into people's houses, getting stuck inside, and sueing the owners of the house because they couldn't get out. THAT is what is wrong with the system. When you can be a theif and sue people..... That's just BS.

[Scott]

Oh, and I checked because I was sure it was a lot more then you said......

She was awarded 2.9 million for the burns, not $200,000.

[Parkbandit]

After reading what Prestius said about the case.. I can see why the lady would be awarded money for negligence on McDonald's part. If what he wrote is true.. McDonald's had 600 other instances of where they were told their coffee was too hot and chose to do nothing about it except give them hush money. Wasn't it easier and cheaper just to fix the problem?

Again.. if what Prestius says is true.. McDonalds was negligent in this case. Pretty interesting to hear the other side of the case.

[Parkbandit]

The McDonald's Coffee Case
Sorting through fact and fiction....

Myth: An opportunistic old woman launched a frivolous lawsuit when she spilled her McDonald's coffee on her lap.

Truth: Lieback was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson's car holding a coffee after purchasing it from a drive-through window of a McDonald's. When she opened the lid to add cream and sugar, she spilled the coffee.

The simple accident caused third-degree burns on more than 6 percent of her body. She was treated in a hospital for a week. McDonald's served coffee 20 or so degrees hotter than the industry standard. The woman, Stella Liebeck, underwent numerous skin-graft surgeries as a result of her third-degree coffee burns to her thighs and groin area. She had permanent scarring on more than 16 percent of her body.

McDonald's had already ignored more than 700 similar claims of coffee burns, many involving children. The company even ignored a request from the Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati to turn down its coffee.

McDonald's refused to pay the then 79-year-old woman's initial medical expenses totaling $11,000. McDonald's actually countered with an offer of $800. And they also refused to turn down the heat on their coffee. Left with $20,000 unpaid bills, she finally hired a lawyer.

A mediator later recommended the parties settle for $225,000. Again, McDonald's refused and the case went to trial.

McDonald's representatives lied to the court and jury about the existence of other claims. A jury reduced the original verdict of $200,000 to $160,000 for contributory negligence - Liebeck spilled it on herself.

Based on McDonald's annual profits of more than $1 billion annually, and more than $1.3 million gross daily coffee sales, the jury levied two days of coffee sales receipts as punitive damages for a punitive damage award of $2.7 million.

A judge later reduced the $2.7 million jury award to $480,000. McDonald's later settled the case for an undisclosed amount, requesting the deal be kept sealed. Most major newspapers ignored the judge's reduction and the final outcome of the case.

Punitive damage awards are not currently allowed under Washington law. Juries undoubtedly return verdicts when faced with a large corporate defendant who has ignored reasonable pleas to resolve such situations or grievances.

In this case, McDonald's simply refused to turn down the heat, so the jury turned it up on McDonald's.


http://www.consumerrights.net/mcdonalds.html

[vigilante]

"go drink some slimfast before you have a heart ache (sic) and die of fatness" (BJ)

This attempt at a comeback brought to you by the letters B and J., grammatical travesty notwithstanding.

[Gokkem]

Folks, please lets try to keep personal attacks out of this. This isn't an elementary school playground; we can debate without calling people names.

[Black Jesus]

not when child molesters attempt to villify me!

[imported_Kranar]

<< This isn't an elementary school playground >>

Sometimes I just don't know...

Anyways, it is interesting hearing the other side of the issue. Just shows how ignorant I personally was on the matter. I must say though, that the coffee issue is simply one issue. There was a report done that shows that in several cities, there is a huge shortage of doctors simply because of all the litigious lawsuits.

Now... reading through this thread, it seems like placing a cap on damages results in companies doing cost-benefit analysis, while not placing a cap on damages results in absurd lawsuits.

Perhaps the problem then, is not in consumer vs. corporation, not in the attitude of Americans who are sue-happy, but in the lawsuit itself. Perhaps the lawsuit is in itself flawed, the standards are too low. I know that civil cases have a lower standard than criminal cases. To be guilty, a charge need only be more likely to have occured than not occured, instead of being guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Perhaps the standard should DIRECTLY reflect the amount of money in damages, so that if 100s of millions of dollars are at stake, one must be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

[Prestius]

>> Yeah. The idiot lady spilled hot coffee on herself and got burned. I guess if you turn on the faucet and burn yourself, you should sue the water company because you burned yourself, or perhaps the hot water tank people because it made the water to hot. <<

McDonalds had kept their coffee at a reasonable temperature, then all the stupid people who spill stuff from time to time wouldn't have been in danger of scalding themselves.

And you know what, if the water company's hot water was scalding people and they were told hundreds of times about it, and they continued to keep their water at a temperature that was a danger to the public, they *should* be sued. Sometimes it's the only way to get the attention of large companies who refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

On the flip side, I hate when people don't take responsibility for their own stupidity. I used to think the exact same thing about the McDonalds coffee thing until I read a little further.


>> Even if you don't use the Mcdonalds coffee thing as an example, have you ever read the Stella (or real close to that) awards. People breaking into people's houses, getting stuck inside, and sueing the owners of the house because they couldn't get out. THAT is what is wrong with the system. When you can be a theif and sue people..... That's just BS. <<

The funny thing is, those cases you see on the "Stella" awards e-mail (usually with a plea for support for tort reform) are all fake. Not one of them has a shred of truth, I'm not saying there aren't frivilious suits out there, but the Stella awards ain't them.

Again ... you can SUE for anything you want. The true crux of the biscuit is getting the case to trial and actually winning.

The moral is, don't beleive everything you read.

-P

[Scott]

Originally posted by Prestius
The funny thing is, those cases you see on the "Stella" awards e-mail (usually with a plea for support for tort reform) are all fake. Not one of them has a shred of truth, I'm not saying there aren't frivilious suits out there, but the Stella awards ain't them.
-P

Not true. I thought so when I first read them so I decided to check it out. I cannot say all of them are true, however I know of at least one of them that was listed was true, because I looked it up.

[imported_Kranar]

Some of the e-mailed awards are false, but if you want the real Stella Awards, you can subscribe to them on their official site. The official Stella Awards are true, and can be verified.

Every award comes with fully documented sources for independent verification.

[Edited on 7-14-2003 by Kranar]

[Red Devil]

Originally posted by Black Jesus
go drink some slimfast before you have a heart ache and die of fatness
HAHAHAHA YOU SOUND LIKE SEAN


"Go choke on a chicken bone, fatass" - Sean

[Edited on 7-16-2003 by Red Devil]

[Black Jesus]

sean is a fag though