Pelosi gift to trial lawyers

barrons · 10-30-2009, 10:00 PM

In the health insurance bill

"
Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages."

catahoula · 10-30-2009, 11:16 PM

I'm hoping a lawyer will be along soon to explain why this is:

A) Not at all what it seems to be.

B) Exactly what it seems to be, but necessary.

C) None of the above but still necessary and whats more - optimal.

lockn · 10-30-2009, 11:23 PM

Here's the actual passage in question:

Quote:

(4) CONTENTS OF ALTERNATIVE MEDICAL LIABILITY LAW.
—The contents of an alternative liability law are in accordance with this paragraph if—
(A) the litigation alternatives contained in
the law consist of certificate of merit, early
offer, or both; and
(B) the law does not limit attorneys’ fees
or impose caps on damages.

Does this say that states can't have fee limits and damage caps, or just that they can't be part of the same law?

BigG · 10-31-2009, 07:03 AM

Since laws are written by lawyers primarily for the benefit of lawyers and are reviewed by old, distinguished lawyers (judges), the interpretation of this section will be the one that most benefits lawyers.

Doctors make mistakes but if Doctors caused illness the way lawyers cause lawsuits we would all be dead.

Hunt · 10-31-2009, 10:05 AM

The critics aren't going to explain this to you adequately. What the provision does is authorize federal incentive payments to states that write laws that meet these criteria. States can limit fees and cap damages all they want--but they won't get the federal handout if they do. To me, it looks like a compromise provision.

cartera45 · 10-31-2009, 04:50 PM

Perhaps it is unfortunate that law suits are often the only way to get to the truth. Try getting documents relating to an injury or an explanation from anyone without filing suit. Maybe there are better ways, but we don't have one now. The doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies do miserable jobs of policing themselves and have perfected the art of cover up when it comes to admission of mistakes. Many seem to think that limiting the amount awarded to victims and the lawyers who facilitate them in getting to the bottom of what really happened is the answer to everything. States that do just that and nothing more are being pea-brained. If it takes a federal handout to get them to really think about all the issues and come up with more creative, and fair, ways to handle them, then bravo.

catahoula · 10-31-2009, 07:04 PM

B), with just a dash of C), then.

Most professions tend to think the spin of the world depends on their continued existence so I'm not singling malpractice lawyers out here, but few are so lucky as to have friends in high places willing to say, in effect:

Get creative. Experiment all you want with ways to bring down the costs associated with medical liability. We'll even reward you for doing so.

Unless, of course, you decide to try tampering with attorneys fees or caps on damages.

cartera45 · 10-31-2009, 08:06 PM

I would like to see changes to the system, but I can think of no way to fairly cap damages. When I was a defense lawyer, I thought it was great to be able to go into a trial knowing there was only so much we could lose, but in really egregious cases where there really was tremendous pain and suffering, I also knew that $350k (the cap we had at the time) wasn't enough. I don't know of a way to cap attorneys' fees either in a way that is fair to everyone. I handled cases that went on for years - often because we, as defense lawyers, did everything we could to drag it on for as long as we could in hopes that the plaintiff attorneys or the plaintiff would run out of money, get desperate and settle.

catahoula · 11-02-2009, 06:19 PM

I've always thought the existing system was the result of the 'egregious' cases, cartera - the obvious ones that were fought anyway. The reform, which is obviously being discouraged here, might have come about from straining out the ones that take advantage of the same system.

poetgrl · 11-02-2009, 06:24 PM

catahoula-- I really think by now it should be obvious to you that the most important thing regarding healtchare is NOT to come between the patient and the attorney. Medical decisions are best made by the patient in consultation with his/her lawyer. We ALL know that.

sheesh.

catahoula · 11-02-2009, 06:27 PM

I'm simple

BigG · 11-02-2009, 06:51 PM

Direct and uncomplex would perhaps be a better desciption.

cartera45 · 11-02-2009, 07:02 PM

cat - I don't understand how capping damages and attorney's fees strains out cases that take advantage of the system.

catahoula · 11-02-2009, 07:54 PM

Thanks, BigG, though I do admire those that can obliquely discuss matters with the subject changers around here. (Seems similar to arguing with someone with a mind like a stripped screw but I'll admit it's an enviable skill, nevertheless.)

cartera - It's a conundrum, isn't it? Because of the egregious cases, one can argue against any caps, all while suspecting that many put in front of juries don't merit the awards that are sometimes handed out.

An example might be the wholesale suing connected with Cerebral Palsy, as mentioned by rds on the malpractice thread.