Valtrax online….

wow….

‘Loser Pays’ is the law in most of the world. And in most of the world, contingency fees are a crime, the crime known as ‘barratry’. Which is why the rest of the world does not have the problem with abusive lawsuits and robber baron lawyers that the US does.

Especially so, since the lawyers currently get a larger percentage of the award than the plaintiff.

Just to make it clear, this includes the lawyers on both sides, plus the court system. The majority of money that changes hands in a lawsuit goes to the lawyers and the courts, not the plaintiff.

This should make it obvious that the US’s current tort system is designed by lawyers for their own benefit. Lawsuits are a business, designed to make money for lawyers.

This is one of the most specious and or dishonest arguments of all time, that our tort system, our constitutional right to seek redress of losses in the civil courts, should be ignored when the injury is caused by a phyician to save some ephemeral “system” money.

There are strong incentives for physicians, hospitals and other care providers to shortchange individual patients to save time, money, and effort, and a poor track record of internal discipline and control of rogue physicians as it is. Blocking redress in the courts is not going to improve the lot of any patient for injury caused by negligent care.

SarahW on July 30, 2009 at 11:57 AM

I am starting my career as a Physician Assitant, but have worked in healthcare (military healthcare) for 10yrs. This arguement is not dishonest… it MUST be had. It is you who is being dishonest. You just sound like a disgruntled patient. Maybe you had a bad doctor or you are just one of those who expects too much of us. either way, it doesn’t change the fact that I know Doctors (Surgeons, FP and OB/GYN) who are in the military because malpractice insurance premiums were too high in private practice. NONE Of them have ever even been sued. OB/GYNs in Florida pay 200k a yr in malpractice insurance (add to that staff/operating costs… Many physicians don’t provide certain services because the cost of malpractice is not worth it. Tx has it right, let them recoup all lost wages/medical costs/etc, and cap punitive damages to 200K per provider. Make the patient, w/in 30 days) get a signed memorandum outlining to the court how the Dr being sued did not meet the standard of care or the case is trouwn out. I’m all for “Loser Pays” the others legal bills.. Right now it’s a win/ not lose scenario. sue the doc, if I win: $$$$$, if I lose: no skin off my back. that alone would cut down frivilous lawsuits. If you’ve worked in medicine for 10 min you’d see that people sue for the dumbest stuff hoping you’ll just settle.

The example of John Edwards is a perfect example. Cerebral Palsy (CP) was blamed on fetal distress during labor. Continuous Fetal monitors are now routine. Have they improved outcomes? Not really, but C-Section rates(along with lengh of stay, risk, and cost) have skyrocked… and the incidence of Cerebral Palsy has not changed. woo-hooo….!

The largest cost to lawyerly misconduct to a doctor comes in his malpractice premiums. If the lawyers bring up frivolous charges on a repeated basis, that doctor’s premiums will go up as a result of the complaints, even though said complaints are groundless and would never actually hold up in court.

That’s another problem that needs fixing I think.

malpractice actions account for at least 10% of all medical costs — 2% by jacking up legal insurance and as much as 9% from the defensive medicine lawsuits create.

Using the 10% figure, that works out to around $225 billion dollars per annum. That’s a big enough number for even congress to pay attention to if cost containment truly was their goal.

But there is nothing in this bill that addresses this at all. Zero, Zip, Nada. We all know why, but that’s not the point. It’s a big dripping meatball that opponents can hit right at the Democrat’s single biggest source of support. And not a very sympathetic one at that.

Getting lost in the tall weeds of this issue isn’t helpful. Democrats simply need to be hammered as to why this 1000+ page monstrosity doesn’t speak to this issue at all.

The left is very good at creating imaginary villains and repeating the accusations over and over to great effect. Conservatives need to at least do the same when the villain is real.

What a great scam. You can bill the crap out of the insurance companies for unnecessary tests while saintly claiming you’re only trying to protect yourself from the wicked lawyers. How do you make $1200 an hour chatting with patients? $100 for a 15-minute visit and $200 in commissions/kickbacks from the wide array of tests you order. Plus you can bill the patient again for your resultant conclusions and recommendations.

You know, as long as he gets to perform the actual repair my mechanic never charges for diagnostic time. We’d be seeing a whole lot less medical testing if that policy became law.

T J Green on July 30, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Who the hell makes $1200 an hour “chatting with patients”, or $200 dollars in “commissions/kickbacks” for ordering tests? What planet are you living on, because I want to go there and work instead of practicing medicine in the real world. You honestly think doctors get paid for ordering a test? So when I send a patient for blood work or an MRI I get a $200 kickback? I’ve been in practice for 20 years, and I’ve yet to see this. Somebody owes me a whole shitload of kickbacks goddammit!

The Obama administration’s cost controls are based on the British and Canadian systems. Tucked in the stimulus bill was an entity called the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Pages 190-192). Its purpose is to decide which treatments you should get, whether you should get them and whether they should even be available.

I believe this was a misprint. Surely they are not saying this is already law via the stimulus bill, are they?
Christian Conservative on July 30th, 2009 at 2:05 pm

agree with your description of how the awards are divvied up. My problem has always been, Why should a lawyer be paid the same amount as the aggrieved party? A family member was in an automobile accident,horribly maimed for life both physically and mentally. Why was the lawyers fee equal to the amount received for pain and suffering.
Let’s not even go into the expenses that lawyers charge on top of their fees. Doctors fees include expenses as do all the HONEST professions.

Why? Because Lawyers are a**holes.

even then, it’s sometimes a good idea to watch what they’re doing).
ManUFan on July 30, 2009 at 1:33 PM

After I say treat them cynically, it’s time for me to say “good ‘talking’ to you”. Else I’d go on all day with this.

oldernwiser on July 30, 2009 at 1:22 PM

You’re absolutely right. Once you have an agreement with the lawyer, he is obligated (within its terms) to act as your fiduciary (even then, it’s sometimes a good idea to watch what they’re doing). But negotiating the initial agreement is an arm’s length deal, and you need to know what you’re doing – where you’re going.

ManUFan on July 30, 2009 at 12:55 PM

If anyone is reading these posts beside you and me, there is one thing I’d like them to take away from them.
The client is the boss!
Seems like every lawyer I ever dealt with started out by taking a top dog attitude,so they could set the relationship on their terms. (ever notice their chair was a bit higher off the floor than yours?)
When I first had to use a lawyer I was as green as I could be. The lawyer led all through that dance because I assumed he would do right by me. I learned from that and I hope anyone reading this will learn from my tale.

This is one of the most specious and or dishonest arguments of all time, that our tort system, our constitutional right to seek redress of losses in the civil courts, should be ignored when the injury is caused by a phyician to save some ephemeral “system” money.

There are strong incentives for physicians, hospitals and other care providers to shortchange individual patients to save time, money, and effort, and a poor track record of internal discipline and control of rogue physicians as it is. Blocking redress in the courts is not going to improve the lot of any patient for injury caused by negligent care.

SarahW on July 30, 2009 at 11:57 AM

I’m sorry, but I just disagree. There are a large number of hospital systems that are run as not-for-profits. They have missions to provide care to their communities. What exactly, then, are the strong incentives to provide bad care? Is it possible that some systems (like some businesses) provide less than stellar care? Absolutely. And I don’t think ANYONE is advocating the removal of redress when a patient has been wronged. But allowing a lawsuit to ask for millions when someone spills coffee is ridiculous. An extreme example, sure, but it has happened. Reform doesn’t mean removal. Indiana has caps on what a claim can pay out, which I feel is a good start.

My favorite part was the student gushing about how the gov’t is going to pay for her loans if she works where they want her to work! Wait ’til she sees her office and her paycheck!

Who are the yahoos and who vetted them? I swear one of them is wearing an ACORN t-shirt.

First of all, apoligies to the decent non-ambulance chasing attornies out there. I happen to know a few.

However, there are a lot of bottom feeders out there. Guys like John Edwards who make a multimillion dollar business out of litigation. The system would collapse if jurors had to be paid a fair wage for their time.

Don’t give me the “It’s your duty to serve” garbage either. I have done thousands of hours of documented service. I’m authorized to wear two ribbons from the navy and never spent a day in the service. I received a medal from the CG wwhere the Commandant came down from governor’s island to pin it on this volunteer personally. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that to brag. I know a lot of people who have done a LOT more. Just saying that I do give to the community.

Jury duty is part of the grease that smooths the tort industry.

BTW – when our state passed an illegal pay raise, a lot of the legislators claimed “I did it for the judges”. The idiots in the press never published the fact that those same legislators were senior partners in multimillion dollar tort firms. Imagine, every multimillion dollar case the firm takes is in front of a judge that their senior partner just gave a 15000 dollar a year raise to. Oh, no, that isn’t bribery, it’s just business as usual.

So, when the liberal doctors start calling for tort reform, the opera ain’t over till the bar association sings — or rather, contributes.

the one thing above all else that I’d like to see become standard practice is that lawyers have to stand for all expenses from their piece of the pie.
If a client was going to bring suit to the tune of $1,000,000 but found out that he would only be getting 20% because the lawyer wanted to be sure he covered his expenses,maybe the client would then go lawyer shopping.

I understand your point – and, frankly, what it means is that the client needs a bit of sophistication in negotiating a fee agreement. Most don’t have it (like needing a lawyer to negotiate your deal with your lawyer), and that causes problems. But the expense situation is a matter for negotiation. You’re right – it should all be clear before the atty-client relationship is formalized. And a lot of the better attys do that.

And you’re definitely correct that lawyer shopping is something people should do; again, most don’t. They see an ad, or get a word-of-mouth reference, and that’s it. But you’re absolutely right, shopping pays off with lawyers – just as it does with anything else. There are a lot of them (some say too many; where’s my friend that thinks we have enough med schools? Maybe we can convert some law schools to med schools …), and you’d be surprised what deals you can get if you’re smart about it.

Brings to mind, many years ago I stopped in to see my lawyer,he offered me a drink and we spent about a half an hour talking football b4 getting down to business. You just know that when I got the bill that snake tried to bill me for the half hour.

Client relations – absolutely billable time!

Here is my idea

First, I support the idea of loser pays…keeps people honest.

Second, trial by your peers…the jury should have a medical understanding….nurses, pharmacists, other doctors.

Conservative Voice on July 30, 2009 at 12:47 PM

I find the trial by peers interesting, not because I agree, but because I remember that prosecutors in criminal usually ax lawyers from the jury pool right away. And when I served on a jury I found out why.

First, I support the idea of loser pays…keeps people honest.

Second, trial by your peers…the jury should have a medical understanding….nurses, pharmacists, other doctors.

Tort reform is to health care reform as the fence is to immigration reform…

don’t talk to me until you’ve done it.

phreshone on July 30, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Yeah, both are bullshit responses to the problem. The wall is a great way to use eminent domain and funnel money to contractors. Illegal immigration wasn’t as bad in the past because businesses couldn’t overtly break the laws like they currently do. A fence is not going to stop the construction sites just blocks away from the Capitol from hiring illegals en masse like they currently do, that’s one reason why I laugh when they act like they want to fix the problem, its going on right outside their offices in plain view and they could care less.

Tort reform, when they tried to put 250k caps on judgements was just a way to help insurance companies from paying out on the doctors that screwed up. If a doctor injures you due to their negligence, they should pay up. Are there frivelous lawsuits? Yes, but they are everywhere, not limited to health care, and there is not going to be a decent way to discern the bad from the good, that is what judges and juries are for, not the corrupt congress.

Moving insurance from companies to the individual is to health care reform what enforcement is to immigration.