|
"If there's no actual evidence of negligence, the verdict won't stand. It will be subject to a judgment N.O.V., or overturned on appeal."
As I said, "little or no". I'm sure you know enough about the actual practice of law to know why the above safeguards are generally inadequate.
"In my opinion, nothing about a judge's education renders her more qualified to decide an appropriate pain and suffering award than a jury of 12 people."
Forgive me for not being more clear. By "educated", I mean a judge that has actually been trained in medical and technical matters to the extent that they can offer truly informed judgements on issues like medical negligence.
"Here in California, pain and suffering awards in medical malpractice cases are limited to $250,000, and medical insurance is still extremely expensive. The trial lawyer makes a convenient fall guy for the cost of health-care, but not a convincing one."
First off, those limits don't eliminate those compensatory costs that shouldn't have been awarded in the first place. Secondly, and more importantly, insurance isn't a state-specific system. Large damage awards in other states will generally impact insurance rates in California as well as everywhere else.
I don't think our broken tort system is the only reason for high health costs, but it's certainly a major one, and one that should be remedied. (At least as long as we're pretending to care about the high cost of health care.)
|